Heindel's Will, In re

• Decision Date: 27 July 1966
• Citation: 272 N.Y.S.2d 500,51 Misc.2d 26
• Parties: In re HEINDEL'S WILL. In the matter of the application of Richard H. Heindel as executor of the last will and testament of Elizabeth Calvert Heindel, also known as Caroline Elizabeth Heindel, also known as Elizabeth C. Heindel, also known as Betty Heindel, and for leave to compromise an action for wrongful death of the decedent herein and to render and settle his account. Surrogate's Court, Kings County
• Court: New York Surrogate Court

Page 500

272 N.Y.S.2d 500

51 Misc.2d 26

In re HEINDEL'S WILL In the matter of the application of Richard H. Heindel as executor of the last will and testament of Elizabeth Calvert Heindel, also known as Caroline Elizabeth Heindel, also known as Elizabeth C. Heindel, also known as Betty Heindel and for leave to compromise an action for wrongful death of the decedent herein and to render and settle his account.

Surrogate's Court, Kings County.

July 27, 1966.

Thomas Schleier, Staten Island, for petitioner.

Leonard R. Berson, New York City, Special Guardian for Infants.

EDWARD S. SILVER, Surrogate.

The proposed compromise of the cause of action for decedent's wrongful death and for other incidental relief is granted. The attorney's compensation for all legal services to and including the decree herein and distribution thereunder is fixed and allowed upon 33 1/3% Of the net recovery. The item of disbursement for the report of Doctor Feinberg is allowed in the amount of $50.00. The other disbursements are fixed and allowed in the requested amount. Petitioner will be reimbursed for the payment of funeral expenses.

The decedent was survived by her husband, a professional man, who has since remarried, a daughter, 14 1/2 years old and another daughter over the age of 21 years. Both the daughters are normal, healthy children. The son, however, has been a helpless cerebral palsy victim since birth, completely bedridden because of extensive crippling deformity, and cannot write or speak. There is no prospect for improvement in his condition. Hence, his dependency period, under the circumstances, is not to be considered as limited solely to his minority, as would be employed in the usual case under the formula set forth in Matter of Kaiser's Estate, 198 Misc. 582, 100 N.Y.S.2d 218.

The Court is morally certain that the husband of the decedent, the father of said child, will continue to properly care for and sustain this child during the child's life or his own life. But to insure the existence of a fund for the benefit of the child should his father predecease him, the Court in the exercise of the discretion granted by Decedent Estate Law, § 133, directs that the net proceeds of the death action be distributed as follows: 70% To decedent's son, 20% To the surviving spouse, and 10% To decedent's minor daughter (Matter of Uravic's Estate v. Jarka Co., 142 Misc. 775, 255 N.Y.S. 638, affd. Uravic v. F. Jarka Co., 225 A.D. 892, 233 N.Y.S. 913, affd. 252 N.Y....