Matter of Droughn
Annotate this CaseDecided on September 18, 2009
Sur Ct, Kings County
In the Matter of the Final Accounting of the Public Administrator of Kings County as Administrator of the Estate of Tiffany Charisse Droughn, Deceased.
3548/2002
Laura Lee Jacobson, J.
Counsel to the Public Administrator moves for an Order, pursuant to the Civil Practice Law and Rules Sec 2221 granting reargument of the Court's decision and Interim order dated November 13, 2008 and upon such reargument, vacating the Court's decision and Interim Order dated November 13, 2008 and signing the supplemental decree submitted on or about June 20, 2008 on the grounds that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or law in determining the application of the Public Administrator of Kings County as Administrator of the Estate of Tiffany Charisse Droughn and such other relief as the Court deems just. The Court did not receive any opposition papers to the motion.
In February, 2008, this Court was appointed Acting Surrogate of Kings County, by the Chief Administrative Judge, to hear and determine certain matters over which Surrogate Diana A. Johnson was not able to preside. The instant case was one of those proceedings.
When the various matters were submitted to me, I was asked to review and determine certain issues. Certainly, the Order appointing me Acting Surrogate did not direct me to "rubber stamp" any and all proposed orders presented to me. In fact, by the time I was presented with various estate matters, no surrogate Judge had reviewed those matters for several years. As a Judge, I have the duty and responsibility of safeguarding the rights of the parties and the interests of the public. (Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department, Sec. 700.5)
In this case, the decedent, who was fifteen years old when she died, was the beneficiary of the proceeds of a structured settlement. That settlement was obtained in a medical malpractice lawsuit commenced by the infant decedent's mother, Marion Droughn. While initially reviewing the papers in the earlier motion seeking approval for fees, the Court noted that additional work needed to be done in this matter. In 2005, the former counsel to the public administrator had moved to convert all unpaid periodic annuity installments due to the estate into a present value sum and to pay that amount to the beneficiary of the estate in a lump sum. However, the former counsel had failed to serve the insurance company who owned the annuity contract. As a result, the Hon. Albert Tomei, then acting Surrogate, denied the motion.
No one renewed the motion on proper papers. When the case was presented to me, I [*2]reviewed the file and found no information concerning
the renewal motion. Further, it was my determination that instead of keeping this file
open and subjecting the estate to further costs, expenses and disbursements, that the counsel to
the public administrator should complete his responsibilities and deal with the issue of the
termination of the annuity installments.
Accordingly, I issued an Order, dated November 13, 2008, concerning the matter of the structured settlement which appeared to be in limbo.
Thereafter, I issued a stay based on the fact that the Attorney General of the State of New
York was examining many of the awards given to the prior counsel, Louis R. Rosenthal who had
been suspended from
practice.
Subsequently, an attorney from the Attorney General's office and counsel for the public administrator appeared in court on this motion and I was advised that the Attorney General's office had no objection to my awarding the fees to the respective counsel.
In the instant motion, counsel for the movant advised the court, for the first time, that the
deceased aunt through her counsel, had advised
the movant that the aunt preferred to receive the balance of the settlement monies as
originally structured. (No affidavit was submitted in support of that new allegation) Further, that
information was never set forth in the initial papers nor was it mentioned in court when this
motion was submitted. The moving papers seek an order vacating the prior orders. That request
is denied. Once this case was assigned to this Court, I had every right, nay, the obligation
to examine the prior proceedings and positions as contained in the Surrogate's Court file. The
Surrogate's Court in many of the boroughs has been the subject of investigations through the
internal workings and external examinations. Part of the problem in the past concerned the
failure to properly supervise the workings in the various matters before the Court. The problem
has been alleviated in recent times in Kings County as a result of the recently elected Surrogate
effectively reviewing and supervising the cases set forth before her. I simply followed her lead.
My prior orders did not vacate any prior orders of this Court. I simply required additional information which counsel for the Public Administrator resisted providing to me until I withheld payment of the fees.
Therefore, I now have sufficient information to review the supplemental decree. Counsel for
the public administrator is directed to
submit an up-dated supplemental decree within 20 days of the date of this Order.
Enter:
_________________________
LAURA L. JACOBSON, JSC.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
