Decision & Orders signed: January 31 & February 1, 2024 Surrogate Gingold
ESTATE OF PAUL A. ESTEVA, Deceased (22-4837/A) — In her turnover petition, Michelle Marie Esteva, decedent Paul A. Esteva’s daughter and the administrator of the estate of Paul A. Esteva (hereinafter, “petitioner”), seeks the turnover of estate property from the decedent’s longtime companion, Suzanne M. White (hereinafter, “respondent”), namely: (a) decedent’s most recent iPhone; (b) decedent’s social security card; (c) a list of decedent’s passwords saved in a file labeled “PAE on the desktop computer in the shared domicile of decedent and respondent; (d) an amber pendant gifted by petitioner to decedent; (e) a dried butterfly specimen gifted by the petitioner to decedent; and (f) $2,500 of the decedent’s social security income. At the call of the calendar on January 30, 2024, respondent turned over to petitioner (a) decedent’s iPhone, (b) a list of decedent’s passwords, (c) an amber pendant, and (d) a dried butterfly. Additionally, respondent stated that she was not in possession of the decedent’s social security card. Accordingly, petitioner’s request that respondent turnover (a) decedent’s most recent iPhone; (b) decedent’s social security card; (c) a list of decedent’s passwords saved in a file labeled “PAE on the desktop computer in the shared domicile of decedent and respondent; (d) an amber pendant gifted by petitioner to decedent; (e) a dried butterfly specimen gifted by the petitioner to decedent is denied as moot. As to the $2,500, it is undisputed that decedent’s social security benefits were paid into his bank account. Petitioner also agreed with respondent that $1,500 was withdrawn from decedent’s bank account prior to his death and further, that the withdrawal represented the exact amount that the decedent routinely contributed to respondent for monthly rent. Given these facts, $1,500 of petitioner’s request of $2,500 is denied. Respondent further stated that $1,000 was withdrawn by her the day after decedent died, and that she paid it to five doormen in the apartment building as a “thank you” for their vigilance and care of the decedent. At the time of his death, decedent was suffering from dementia and would frequently wander from the apartment. Petitioner does not dispute respondent’s account of decedent’s dementia along with his propensity to wander. Respondent also stated that she and the decedent had discussed doing this before his death. Given these facts and further, in the interest of justice, the court declines to order respondent to turnover $1,000 to petitioner (SCPA 2101 [4]). This decision constitutes the order of the court. The clerk of the court shall email this decision and order to the addresses below. Dated: January 30, 2024
