In re Rosenblatt
| Decision Date | 14 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2017-2245/B,C |
| Citation | 2022 NY Slip Op 22187 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Applications of Lois M. Rosenblatt, Public Administrator of Queens County, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Ammie Oglesby, Deceased, To Vacate Deeds and Turnover Real Property. |
| Court | New York Surrogate Court |
Gerard J. Sweeney, Esq.
Counsel to the Public Administrator, Queens County
Samantha Sbrocchi, Esq.
Attorney for Robert Boyd
Joseph A. Ledwidge, Esq.
Attorney for Orian Collins
Rafi Hasbani, Esq.
Attorney for Amida Special Opportunty Investments, LLC.
Michael L. Mangini, Esq.
Attorney for SHC Equities, LLC.
Petitioner seeks inter alia, the return to the estate of two parcels of real property contending that the instruments purporting to transfer title to the subject premises are void ab initio.
The subject premises were owned by the decedent, Ammie Oglesby who died on February 15, 2017. Subsequent to her passing, Robert Boyd (Boyd) sought probate of an instrument dated February 27, 2015 purporting to be decedent's last will and testament. The instrument provided for the entirety of the decedent's residuary estate to be distributed to Boyd. As the probate of the instrument was unchallenged, letters testamentary were issued to Boyd on February 2, 2018.
A proceeding was thereafter commenced to vacate the above probate decree on the basis that Boyd had omitted distributees on his petition, and therefore personal jurisdiction had not been obtained over all of the necessary parties in the underlying proceeding (SCPA § 203). By decision dated May 20, 2020 the Court vacated its prior decree of probate, revoked the letters testamentary issued to Boyd, directed an accounting, and appointed the Public Administrator as temporary administrator of the decedent's estate (SCPA § 209).
In the instant turnover proceedings, petitioner alleges that Boyd entered into two fraudulent transfers of decedent's real property. First, on September 27, 2017, prior to his appointment as fiduciary, Boyd "as sole heir of the Estate of Ammie Oglesby," transferred decedent's Cambria Heights property to respondent SHC Equities LLC (SHC), an entity whose sole member is respondent, Anthony Goscott (Goscott). On June 22, 2018, under the auspices of the fraudulent probate decree, Boyd, "as Executor," transferred decedent's interest in a St. Albans property to respondent MRAG Development, LLC (MRAG), another entity in which Goscott is the sole member. MRAG obtained a $300, 000.00 mortgage on the property from respondent, Amida Special Opportunity Investments LLC (Amida).
Petitioner, as temporary administrator, now seeks to nullify and void the aforesaid deeds and mortgage and return the real property to decedent's estate. Respondents SHC, MRAG, Amida, and Goscott move to dismiss the petitions pursuant to CPLR 3211[a ][1], [2], [4], or [5]. In the alternative, respondents seek relief pursuant to CPLR 3212, or a transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court for consolidation with another action.
Movants initially seek dismissal on subject matter jurisdiction grounds, arguing same is lacking as the Surrogate's Court's limited jurisdiction relates only to "matters affecting estates of decedents and not to independent matters involving controversies between living persons." Movants further opine that it would be a "miscarriage of justice" for this court to entertain such complex and discovery-laden proceedings when they "involve litigation between living individuals or ongoing entities."
A panoply of decisional law is cited by the movants in support of this argument. However, nearly all of the decisions relied upon curiously predate 1962. Significantly, it was on September 1, 1962 that the New York State Constitution was amended to provide that this court's power extends "over all actions and proceedings relating to the affairs of decedents, probate of wills, administration of estates and actions and proceedings arising thereunder or pertaining thereto..." (NY Const, art VI, § 12 [d]).
This constitutional mandate-codified in the Surrogates' Court Procedure Act (SCPA 201, 202)-obviates the need for the Surrogate's Court to couch its authority to entertain a particular matter based upon a specific statute. In any event, this court's dominion over these proceedings is clearly spelled out in SCPA 2103 which provides, in pertinent part, that [a] fiduciary may present to the court which has jurisdiction over the estate a petition... that any property as defined in 103 or the proceeds or value thereof which should be paid or delivered to him is (a) in the possession or control of a person who withholds it from him, whether possession or control was obtained prior to creation of the estate or subsequent thereto... 'Property' as used in this section shall include any and all personal or real property in which decedent had any interest..." (SCPA 2103 [1] (a), [2]).
Now, "'for the Surrogate's Court to decline jurisdiction, it should be abundantly clear that the matter in controversy in no way affects the affairs of a decedent or the administration of his estate'" (Matter of Piccione, 57 N.Y.2d 278, 288 [1982], citing Matter of Young, 80 Misc.2d 937, 939 [Sur Ct, New York County 1975]).
Generally, the Surrogate's Court may invoke jurisdiction if the relief sought would directly benefit the estate (see Matter of Denton, 6 A.D.3d 531 [2d Dept 2004]; see also, Matter of Mooney, 263 A.D.2d 727 [3d Dept 1999]; H & G Operating Corporation v Linden, 151 A.D.2d 898 [3d Dept 1989]). In the present proceedings, the petitioner, as temporary administrator, seeks to vindicate the rights of the estate to recover title to the subject real property, and the estate will directly benefit if the relief sought is granted. Contrary to movants' assertions, this falls squarely within this court's jurisdictional purview (see e.g., id., Estate of Barrie, 134 Misc.2d 440 [Sur Ct, Nassau County 1987]; Estate of Marra, 2001 NYLJ Lexis 4939 [Sur Ct, Nassau County 2001]; Matter of Hasan, 2013 NYLJ Lexis 3417 [Sur Ct, Kings County 2015]).
The court's power to adjudicate these proceedings is also fortuitously not impacted by movants' unfounded concern that the Court lacks the aptitude necessary to comprehend the sophisticated legal issues presented herein, or the sagacity to render a just result. Despite counsel's apprehension, the court has had occasion to adjudicate many complex issues, including but not limited to those that involve disputed title to real and personal property, fraud, and overreach (see for example, Estate of Manuel, 2017 NYLJ LEXIS 2907 [Sur Ct, Queens County 2017]; Matter of Rosenblatt (Solomon), 65 Misc.3d 1232 [A] [Sur Ct, Queens County 2019], Matter of Rezzolla, 184 A.D.3d 717 [2d Dept 2020]; Matter of Hersh, 198 A.D.3d 773 [2d Dept 2021]; Matter of Hersh, 198 A.D.3d 776 [2d Dept 2021]).
Similarly, complaints of "ambush" and "tag team" tactics purportedly levied against counsel during a court conference do not constitute a legal basis for this court to decline jurisdiction. Upon review of the record, the issues complained of are likely attributable to counsel's lack of familiarity with the procedural nuances of the SCPA, difficulties encountered in navigating the e-filing system, and a desire to adjudicate in the forum to which counsel has grown more accustomed. In any event, as the court noted during oral argument, any potential "personality" issues with staff have been eliminated. Accordingly, the branches of the motions seeking to dismiss the proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are denied.
Respondents also seek dismissal of the petitions based on CPLR 3211(a)(1), claiming that the deeds reflecting the transfer of the subject premises to the respondents qualify as irrefutable documentary...
To continue reading
Request your trial