You are here: / / DESPITE PROBATE OF WILL IN FLORIDA, DECEDENT WAS A DOMICILIARY OF NEW YORK,...

DESPITE PROBATE OF WILL IN FLORIDA, DECEDENT WAS A DOMICILIARY OF NEW YORK, ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK INAPPROPRIATE, NONANCILLARY LETTERS GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined decedent was a domiciliary of New York, despite the probate of the will in Florida:

Even if the Florida court had decided that decedent was a domiciliary of that state, “the decree of the State of original probate is not conclusive on the question of domicile or residence” … . Accordingly, this Court may make an independent inquiry into domicile … .

[Petitioner] failed to meet her burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that decedent had changed her domicile from New York to Florida … . The documentation submitted by petitioner in support of her motion to renew, showed that decedent voted in New York, her driver’s license was from New York, and her passport application used her New York address… . She filed New York State tax returns … , and her will and death certificate said she was from New York … . Moreover, when decedent left New York for Florida in July 2009, she said she intended to return, but never did because of medical complications … .

Since decedent was a New York domiciliary, ancillary probate in this state is inappropriate, even though her will has already been probated in Florida … . Therefore, the grant of ancillary letters to [petitioner] is revoked, and nonancillary letters are granted to the Public Administrator. Matter of Assimakopoulos, 2018 NY Slip Op 01440, First Dept 3-6-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (DESPITE PROBATE OF WILL IN FLORIDA, DECEDENT WAS A DOMICILIARY OF NEW YORK, ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK INAPPROPRIATE, NONANCILLARY LETTERS GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/DOMICILE (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS, DESPITE PROBATE OF WILL IN FLORIDA, DECEDENT WAS A DOMICILIARY OF NEW YORK, ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK INAPPROPRIATE, NONANCILLARY LETTERS GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, DESPITE PROBATE OF WILL IN FLORIDA, DECEDENT WAS A DOMICILIARY OF NEW YORK, ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK INAPPROPRIATE, NONANCILLARY LETTERS GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISQUALIFY A JUROR WHO SAID SHE COULD NOT CONTINUE DELIBERATING BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT SEPARATE HER EMOTIONS FROM THE CASE.
THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS; THEREFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD’S FINDING THAT THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT WAS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT BINDING ON THE THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE WHICH HAD BEEN ORDERED AS A DISCOVERY SANCTION RE: A MISSING SURVEILLANCE TAPE; JURY VERDICT SET ASIDE (FIRST DEPT). ​
Trial Judge’s Failure to Conduct an Inquiry Concerning a Juror’s Conduct During the Trial Required Reversal
Owners’ Intent, at the Time Plaintiff Was Injured, to Use the Property As a Second Home Triggered the Homeowners’ Exemption to Labor Law Liability Notwithstanding that the Owners Never Occupied the Property and Started Leasing It Two Years After the Accident
PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL FROM AN UNSECURED LADDER, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CLAIM, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ALLEGED THE LADDER SLIPPED ON A WET FLOOR (FIRST DEPT).
NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT).
CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE GUARANTY LAW WHICH WAS FOUND TO HAVE BARRED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR CERTAIN AMOUNTS (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS... PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE...