ESTATE OF CLAIRE PEARCE a/k/a CLAIRE ANTOINETTE PEARCE, Deceased (19-2735/B) — The e-filed documents listed by NYSCEF document numbers 36-39, 41-42, 44-47, and 50 were read in deciding the instant motion. Preliminary Statement In this contested miscellaneous proceeding, Holly Pearce (Petitioner), as Co-Executor of the estate of Claire Pearce a/k/a Claire Antoinette Pearce (Testator), seeks construction of a latent ambiguity in Article SECOND of Decedent’s Last Will and Testament dated July 9, 2001 (Will). Michael Anthony Pearce (Objectant), also a Co-Executor of the estate, filed objections. Petitioner now moves for summary judgment and Objectant cross-moves for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Petitioner’s motion is granted and the cross-motion is denied. Background The decedent died on June 12, 2019, survived by two children, the Petitioner and the Objectant. The decedent’s Will was admitted to probate on May 26, 2020, and Letters Testamentary issued to Petitioner and Objectant, as Co-Executors. In the prior probate proceeding, the parties stipulated to resolving a dispute raised by Objectant by commencing this construction proceeding. The Testator’s estate includes, inter alia, a 4-story, 2-family brownstone (the Brownstone) and an appurtenant lot containing a backyard, private garden, parking pad and driveway (the Lot) located in the Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn, where the Testator resided at the time of her death. At issue is Article SECOND of the Will which provides in pertinent part as follows: “I give the following real property to my daughter, HOLLY LUCIA PEARCE (a/k/a Holly Lester) if she survives me: My primary residence at the time of my death.” (Emphasis in original.) The Will further bequeathed all tangible personal property to Petitioner and the residuary estate to Petitioner and Objectant in equal shares. The parties inform that the residuary estate includes three parcels of real property located upstate and in North Carolina. The Parties’ Contentions Petitioner seeks construction of the term “[m]y primary residence” in Article SECOND of Testator’s Will to mean the Brownstone and Lot together. The dispute as to the meaning of that term arises from Objectant’s contention that the Brownstone and Lot are assigned two separate lot numbers on the Tax map for Kings County, and bear two separate street addresses.1 Thus, Objectant argues, the Testator’s “primary residence” means the Brownstone only and the Lot belongs in the residuary estate. Petitioner counters that by the term “[m]y primary residence,” the Testator could only have meant both the Brownstone and Lot together, as she always considered them to be one property that was her residence. In support of her motion, Petitioner asserts that for over 50 years, the Testator resided in the Brownstone, which is connected to the Lot containing a backyard, private garden, parking pad and driveway that the Testator actively used as part and parcel of her residence. Petitioner submits copies of a recorded deed dated March 21, 1968, when the Testator and her then spouse purchased the property, and a subsequent deed dated July 14, 1974, when the property was transferred to the Testator as sole owner. The deeds bear both tax lot numbers assigned to the Brownstone and Lot and recite a property description that encompasses both lots. Also submitted are copies of mortgages on the property taken in 1990 and 1994, which secured the loans with both tax lots as one property being mortgaged. Accordingly, Petitioner asserts, there is overwhelming evidence that the Testator considered the Brownstone and Lot to be one property that was her residence. Objectant counters that the manner in which the Testator used the Lot has no bearing on whether she considered the Lot to be part of her residence. Objectant asserts that the Brownstone has its own backyard and the Lot itself is not an extension of the Brownstone’s backyard. Rather, the two tax lots are separate properties and the only way to legally merge the two is with the permission of the City of New York, which the Testator never sought. Objectant further argues that the two lots are taxed separately, and that the Testator claimed a STAR tax abatement on the Brownstone only as her “primary residence.” Moreover, when the Testator sought permission from the City to construct a parking pad in the Lot, she made the application using the Lot’s street address, not the Brownstone’s. Discussion The court’s primary function in any will construction proceeding is to ascertain and effectuate the testator’s intent. (Matter of Bernstein, 40 AD3d 1086, 1087 (2007); Matter of Gustafson, 74 NY2d 448, 451 [1989]). Intent is discerned by a reading of the will as a whole, and where its language is “clear and unmistakable so as to convey only one meaning,” no recourse to external evidence is permitted in discerning the testator’s intent. (Matter of Hastings, 184 AD2d 849, 850 [3d Dept 1992]). However, where a will provision contains a latent ambiguity, the court may consider extrinsic evidence to discern the testator’s intent. (In re Estate of Luposello, 225 AD2d 551, 552 [2d Dept 1996]). “Typically, a latent ambiguity arises where the language found in the will is clear and intelligible and suggests but a single meaning, but some extrinsic fact outside of the instrument creates a necessity for interpretation or a choice between two or more possible meanings.” (11 Warren’s Heaton on Surrogate’s Court Practice §187.01[5][b] [2024]). Here, the term “[m]y primary residence” in the subject Will is unambiguous in its common usage. However, Objectant has raised a latent ambiguity on the ground that the Brownstone and Lot bear two separate lot numbers according to the Tax map. Therefore, the Court will consider the extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties to discern the Testator’s intent.
