ESTATE OF MARCO EUGENE, Deceased

ESTATE OF MARCO EUGENE, Deceased (10/93/C) — In this highly contested proceeding to judicially settle the account of the executor, a son of the decedent, two daughters of the decedent, who are potential objectants, move by order to show cause for an order: 1) appointing a temporary receiver to manage four commercial properties in which the decedent had an interest; 2) granting the temporary receiver authority to properly market and sell the realty; 3) directing the executor to transfer the estate properties to a receiver; 4) granting the temporary receiver immediate control of estate revenue for purposes of collecting rents and paying maintenance; 5) permitting the temporary receiver to retain and pay for the services of a forensic accountant; and 6) directing the continuation of discovery and compelling the executor to produce all estate books and records.

The decedent died on January 7, 2010 survived by five children. His will dated October 8, 2009 was admitted to probate by decree dated August 24, 2011. Under the terms of the will no provision is made for two sons; realty located at 907 Edison Avenue is specifically devised to the executor individually, and the residuary is to be divided equally amongst the executor and the movants. The movants assert that no distributions have been made and as a result they sought to compel the executor to account, which resulted in a 90-day order to account issued on March 19, 2012. After several “so ordered” stipulations extending the executor’s time to account, citation finally issued in this judicial accounting on April 17, 2013, but only after the movants sought to hold him in contempt. Presently, the parties are in the midst of SCPA 2211 examinations of the executor and no objections have been filed. Since the initial return date of this proceeding, fourteen conferences have been held, and the parties have entered into numerous stipulations governing CPLR article 31 disclosure and other issues. In support of this application, the movants argue that the executor’s repeated delays, his change of counsel six times, coupled with his repeated non-compliance with the terms of the stipulations, warrant the grant of this application.