Matter of Kollman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Matter of Kollman 2023 NY Slip Op 33065(U) September 6, 2023 Surrogate's Court, New York County Docket Number: File No. 2018-1646/A Judge: Hilary Gingold Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SURROGATE'S COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------x Probate Proceeding, Will of ROSITA KOLLMAN, File No. 2018-1646/A Deceased. --------------------------------------x G I N G O L D , S . In this probate proceeding in the estate of Rosita Kollman, the nominated executors under a prior instrument ask the court for permission to file objections (SCPA 1410). Proponent and one of the beneficiaries under the propou::-ided will oppose the motion. The charities named in the prior instrument support the motlon. Rosita leaving a Kollman probate (Decedent) estate djstributee is a nephew. died April of approximately 24, 2018 $ 6, CO C, at 0 0 0. age Her Shortly after decedent's death, 92, only Shmuel Spiegel (Spiegel) filed a petition to probate an instrument, dated Octnber 31, 2013 (2013 Will). Spiegel and Robert Falk wi 21, after the The 2013 Will nominated as executor.3 (Falk), disposition of who had predeceased. tangible personal Under such property, the instrument conLains two pre-residuary cash bequests: (1) $3,000,000 to the First Roumanian American Congregation, of which Spiegel is the head Rabbi, and residuary estate is [* 1] $100,000 bequeathed default to his estate) stepson. (2) to decedent's :'._n equal and Nachum Kohlman shares to (Kohlman), nephew. Falk (or The in Decedent's Sylvia Lisker Sporn (Lisker) and her son, Lenny Sporn (Sporn), then filed a cross-petition to probate an earlier instrument, dated April 7, 2008 executors. to (2008 Will), of which they were the nominated In the 2008 Will, the Decedent's entire estate passes Tel-Hashomer Hospital and/ or Schneider Hospital (Hospitals) "and/ or such other hospitals and/or charitable institutions, such amounts, conditions and in such proportions, as my Executors, in in and under such terms and their sole and unquestioned discretion shall determine." In the event that such executors fail to exercise such discretion, the residuary estate passes to the Hospitals. Lisker and Sporn (Movants) now seek the court's authorization to object to the 2013 Will, since their only financial interest in the 2008 Will is fiduciary commissions (SCPA 1410). Their proposed objections because, allege, at subject of the a inter time the alia, that 2013 Will pending MHL Article 81 Decedent was lacked executed, proceeding, she capacity was and that tie such instrument was procured by fraud and undue influence, by certain individuals, including Spiegel, Kohlman, and Falk, who was Decedent's accountant, as well as the attorney draftsman. The standard for permitting the filing of objections in the circumstances here is "for good cause shown" (SCPA 1410). Courts have in found good cause under SCPA 1410 a variety circumstances, including where there was a longstanding 2 [* 2] of relationship between the fiduciary and the decedent (see 91 Misc 2d 125 Silverman, Molnar, 76 Misc 2d 126 [Sur Ct, [Sur Ct, NY County 1977]; NY County 1973]), Matter of Matter of where the fiduciary was granted discretionary powers under the instrument (see Matter of Marks, 142 Misc 2d 733 [Sur Ct, NY County 1989]; Matter of Kramer, NYLJ, August 9, 2000 at 21, col 3 [Sur Ct, Queens County 2000]; also see Matter of Nubile, NYLJ, Sept. 12, 2022 at 17, col 1 [Sur Ct, Bronx County 2012] [court allowed fiduciary to participate where in SCPA 1404 discovery fiduciary discretionary powers]), prior will granted and where the later instrument was substantially changed from previous instruments (see Matter of Rubenstein, NYLJ, Jan. 9, 2012 at 20, col 5 [Sur Ct, NY County 2012]; Matter of Kramer, NYLJ, August 9, 2000 at 21, col 3 [Sur Ct, Queens County 2000]). Here, Movants, to whom Decedent conferred discretionary power to select charitable beneficiaries in addition to the Hospitals under the 2008 Will, They have financial their aim shown that have sufficiently demonstrated good cause. they are not seeking to promote interest in potentially seeking commissions. is to preserve validity of the 2013 Will. Decedent's Indeed, their Rather, intent by challenging the Lisker had a long and close relationship with Decedent, which would enable her to assist the court in determining Decedent's true intentions. 3 [* 3] The allegations raised in the proposed objections, as amplified by the motion papers, raise substantial issues about the validity of the will. The subject will differs substantially from Decedent's prior instruments' and was allegedly executed at a time when she was the subject of a MHL Article 81 proceeding. In addition, will, two of the parties benefit ting from the propounded Falk and Spiegel, with Decedent. allegedly had confidential relationships While such allegations are disputed, they cannot be resolved at this stage of the proceeding. The fact that no other party has challenged the propounded will is another factor to be considered, as the court has an independent obligation to determine the validity of the instrument (see SCPA 1408(1]). The court has considered the arguments in opposition to the motion, but has found them to be without merit. Based on the foregoing, the court finds shown good cause under SCPA 1410. Accordingly, that Movants have it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further ORDERED that the objections which the court accepted for 1 Filed with the court is a copy of a will, dated March 5, 2009 (2009 Will), which contains dispositive provisions identical to the 2008 Will, but with Falk nominated as co-executor with Spiegel, in place of Sporn. Spiegel's counsel, in his affirmation opposing the motion, states that the original of the 2009 Will cannot be located. 4 [* 4] filing subject to a determination of Movants' standing, are allowed as filed. Dated: September 5 [* 5]
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.
