Matter of Glickson
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 12, 2011
Sur Ct, Bronx County
In the Matter of the Estate of Elaine Glickson, Deceased
1009-1090
Reddy, Levy & Ziffer (Mark J. Levy, Esq., of counsel) for Bonnie Gould, Public Administrator of Bronx County
Krieger & Prager, LLP (Steven D. Prager, Esq., of counsel) for Pearl Raskin, objectant
Dawn Marie Farinella, Esq., guardian ad litem for unknown distributees
Velella & Basso, Esq. (Gary B. Basso, Esq., of counsel) for Andrea Oprhan, claimant
Lee L. Holzman, J.
In this proceeding to judicially settle the account of the Public Administrator, objections were filed by an alleged sister who contends that she is the decedent's only distributee, and a kinship hearing was held before the court. Numerous documents were admitted into evidence and a neighbor of the decedent and the objectant testified at the hearing.
The proof establishes that the decedent died at the age of 70 and was the only child of her mother, Miriam Glikson (nee Slonimsky), who was the second wife of the decedent's adoptive father, Max Glikson. It is further established that Max Glikson had one child, Pearl Raskin (nee Glikson), the objectant herein, with his first wife, Lillian Glikson (nee Schifman) and that both Max Glikson and Miriam Glikson predeceased the decedent.
The neighbor testified that he lived across the street from the decedent from1999 until her death on February 19, 2009. This witness also knew the decedent for many years prior to 1999 as previously he lived elsewhere in the neighborhood, and his grandmother knew the decedent. He stated that he assisted the decedent with carrying groceries, generally he talked to her about twice a week outside her home, he never saw anyone other than delivery people visit her, and the decedent never mentioned any family members other than her mother. He testified that he had visited the decedent's apartment once, she had been to his home, and she was employed by Jacobi Hospital. It was his belief that she had never married or had children.
The objectant testified that she believed she would have heard if the decedent ever married or had children, but conceded that she did not recall if she ever communicated with the decedent's mother or the decedent after Max Glikson, the objectant's father and the decedent's adoptive father, died in 1981. In the probate petition filed in the estate of Max Glikson in this court, the decedent's [*2]mother, the decedent and the objectant are listed as his only distributees. The informant on the decedent's death certificate is a person who filed a claim against the estate alleging that the decedent made a gift causa mortis to her.
In order to establish her distributive rights, the objectant must not only establish her relationship to the decedent and the maximum number of persons who survived the decedent having the same degree of relationship to the decedent, she must also demonstrate the absence of any person surviving the decedent with a closer degree of relationship (see Matter of Morrow, 187 Misc 2d 742, 743 [2001]). Although the court finds on the present state of the record that the objectant is the decedent's only sibling, the objectant has not satisfactorily established that the decedent had no spouse or issue. Furthermore, the court may not conclude that the objectant is the decedent's sole distributee until three years have elapsed since the decedent's death and a diligent and exhaustive effort has been made for possible other distributees (see SCPA 2225 [b]). There appear to be at least two additional avenues that could be explored with regard to whether the decedent ever married or had children; namely, the records of the decedent's employer, Jacobi Hospital, and the claimant, who was allegedly close enough to the decedent to believe the decedent intended to give her a substantial gift.
Based upon the present state of the record, the Public Administrator is directed not to settle a decree judicially settling her account prior to March 12, 2012 to give the objectant, if she so desires, time to assemble additional proof. In the event that the objectant obtains additional proof, she should file with the court and serve upon all parties who appeared the additional documents that she will offer in evidence and a list of any additional witnesses. In lieu of a witness list, she may file and serve affidavits from any witness, and upon the consent of all parties who appeared at the hearing, an additional hearing may be waived, and the court will determine the kinship issues based upon the additional submissions. If the objectant does not submit any additional proof in the time afforded, her objections are dismissed, and the Public Administrator may settle a decree directing payment of the net distributable proceeds to the Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York for the benefit of those who may establish entitlement thereto. The Chief Clerk shall mail or deliver a copy of this decision, which constitutes the interim order of the court, to all parties who appeared at the hearing.
Proceed accordingly.
SURROGATE
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.
