jkh001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> Sam Sloan wrote:
>> SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
>> COUNTY OF NEW YORK
>> __________________________________________x
>>
>> In the Matter of the Estate of
>>
>> Ruth V. Cardoso,
>>
>> Deceased
>> FILE
>> NO. 2546/2002
>>
>> NOTICE
>> OF MOTION
>>
>> __________________________________________x
>>
>> PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Paul C. Benko
>> and upon all of the papers and proceedings had herein the undersigned
>> will move this court on the 20th day of May 2008 for an order granting
>> a rehearing of the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen of
>> this court dated March 17, 2008 which granted summary judgment in
>> favor of Citibank.
>>
>> PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Petitioner demands service of a copy
>> of all opposition papers to this motion at least five days before the
>> return date of this motion.
>>
>> Yours, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________
>> Paul C. Benko
>> April 30, 2008
>> To:
>>
>> Barry R. Glickman
>> Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
>> 575 Lexington Avenue
>> New York NY 10022
>>
>> John Reddy
>> The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
>> 85 Worth Street
>> New York NY 10013
>>
>>
>>
>> SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
>> COUNTY OF NEW YORK
>> __________________________________________x
>>
>> In the Matter of the Estate of
>>
>> Ruth V. Cardoso,
>>
>> Deceased
>> FILE
>> NO. 2546/2002
>>
>> MOTION
>> FOR REHEARING
>> __________________________________________x
>>
>>
>> The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing
>> of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen dated March
>> 17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Surrogate Glen made
>> numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision
>> of Surrogate Glen granted summary judgment to Citibank. A motion for
>> summary judgment can only be granted if there are no triable issues of
>> fact. In this case, there are many triable issues of fact. This
>> decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even
>> presented evidence to sup****t their claims and these are triable
>> issues of fact.
>>
>> 1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no
>> mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December
>> 2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New
>> York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish
>> all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the
>> time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained
>> silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the
>> motion for summary judgment.
>>
>> 2. The decision of Surrogate Glen repeatedly refers to a "Brazil
>> Will". However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not
>> even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from
>> somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is
>> not written in English. It is written in ****tuguese. No certified
>> translation has been provided to this court. No do***ent signed by the
>> deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. A letter in the file
>> states that Ruth Cardoso was seriously ill, in bed, and on the brink
>> of death. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed
>> will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso.
>> Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who
>> is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who stated that
>> he intended to donate any money left by the decedent to the poor
>> people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed
>> by the petitioner with this Surrogate's Court back in 2003 when it was
>> received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not
>> named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will.
>>
>> 3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the
>> Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is
>> followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will
>> but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner
>> must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the
>> Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find
>> relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence
>> concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives.
>>
>> 4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim
>> Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department of this Surrogate's Court, that he
>> must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out
>> who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the
>> deceased.
>>
>> 5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in
>> Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died there a few years
>> earlier. This was because her mother was a German National.
>> Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of
>> this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and
>> learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig,
>> because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil.
>> Petitioner contacted Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any
>> relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to
>> probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no
>> relatives nor any money in Brazil.
>>
>> 6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry
>> that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then
>> ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador
>> Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He
>> then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in
>> Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him.
>>
>> 7. We know that this is what happened because, as the court notes,
>> Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in March 2003. Ruth V.
>> Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than
>> three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court
>> in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam.
>>
>> 8. It was in March 2003 that pursuant to instructions given by the
>> Probate Department of this court under the supervision of Mr. Tim
>> Amerist of this court, Petitioner was told to contact the Consular
>> Officer of Brazil to find out any possible relatives of the deceased.
>> Petitioner wishes to emphasize that the clerks in the Probate
>> Department specifically directed Petitioner to contact the Brazilian
>> Embassy or the Brazilian Office in the United Nations to see if they
>> knew of any relatives of Ruth Cardoso. In short, the Probate
>> Department sent Petitioner on what would have been a wild goose chase
>> except that as a result Petitioner contacted Wolfgang Roddewig who was
>> the Honorary Consul of Brazil. Upon realizing the purpose of my
>> contacting him, Sr. Roddewig realized that there was money to be had
>> by claiming the money for himself. Petitioner has filed all of the
>> pertinent do***ents with this court and it plainly obvious that it was
>> pursuant to the directives of the Probate Department of this Court
>> that I was required to notify Sr. Roddewig and he then started efforts
>> to grab the money for his own benefit.
>>
>> 9. In August, 2004, after I discovered what had happened, I was able
>> to track down the person at Citibank who actually paid the money to
>> Sr. Roddewig. This person is a ****tuguese speaking staff member at the
>> 111 Wall Street office of Citibank. She told me that she had decided
>> to treat this as a foreign or overseas account especially in view of
>> the fact that the account had lain dormant for four years. She said
>> that it had taken Citibank a long time to pay the money to Sr.
>> Roddewig because Citibank kept asking him for a copy of his pass****t
>> or other do***entation to prove his identity and it had taken him a
>> long time to comply and then only after several letters had been
>> exchanged. The Citibank official told me that she had had no idea that
>> there was a case pending in the New York Surrogate's Court all this
>> time regarding these same funds. In short, she admitted that the money
>> had been paid to Sr. Roddewig simply because they had failed to notice
>> the legal notice published in the New York Law Journal.
>>
>> 10. Meanwhile, Petitioner was going through the lengthy and burdensome
>> proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to
>> �prove� the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to
the
>> signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the
>> Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices
>> in the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003 (at a cost of
>> $2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogate's Court in
>> December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested the
>> op****tunity to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it
>> took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions
>> and writing his re****t.
>>
>> 11. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings
>> in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to
>> Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to
>> produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will
>> has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It
>> is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain
>> articles of furniture and jewelry plus her apartment to various
>> friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under
>> this supposed will and no mention of Wolfgang Roddewig was made in
>> this supposed will.
>>
>> 12. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in
>> the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003, Citibank simply
>> overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as
>> late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig.
>> Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the
>> Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account,
>> who was Eric Mark of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. Mark
>> still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time
>> petitioner visited Mr. Mark to inform him of the latest developments
>> in the case, Mr. Mark assured him that the money would not be moved
>> out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York
>> Surrogates Court.
>>
>> 13. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required
>> court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. Mark and Mr. Mark
>> discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out
>> of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. Mark.
>>
>> 14. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security
>> system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and
>> thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often
>> do not talk to each other. Eric Mark probably only talks to his own
>> supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador
>> Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it
>> was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived
>> six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of
>> Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the
>> account executive, who was Eric Mark.
>>
>> 15. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE.
>>
>> 16. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a
>> failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all
>> happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right
>> thing. However, they have produced no evidence in sup****t of their
>> claims. They have not even submitted do***ents from the Succession's
>> and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there
>> is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will
>> and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the
>> oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During
>> that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements
>> which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on
>> the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to
>> whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the
>> money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been
>> completely stonewalling on this subject.
>>
>> 17. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time
>> honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have
>> to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and
>> claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown
>> and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices
>> were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to
>> stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of
>> this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in
>> the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those
>> notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished
>> their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no
>> information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for
>> summary judgment.
>>
>> WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a
>> rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated March 17,
>> 2008 should be set aside and reversed.
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________
>> Paul C. Benko
>>
>> April 30, 2008
>>
>>
>> VERIFICATION
>>
>> I, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
>> being duly sworn, says:
>>
>> I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
>> contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
>> to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
>> belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________
>> Signature of
>> Petitioner
>>
>> On the 30th Day of April, 2008 before me personally came Paul C. Benko
>> to me known to be the person described herein and who executed the
>> foregoing instrument. Such person duly swore to such instrument before
>> me and duly acknowledged that he executed the same.
>>
>>
>> _____________________________
>> NOTARY PUBLIC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Copy to:
>>
>> Barry R. Glickman
>> Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
>> 575 Lexington Avenue
>> New York NY 10022
>>
>> John Reddy
>> The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
>> 85 Worth Street
>> New York NY 10013
>
>
> A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of
> phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought
> to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie
> down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if
> Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank.
Glenn is going to deny the motion anyway. This is really setting the
stage for an appeal.
I appeared before Glenn when she was sitting as a Supreme Court Justice
in Part V (matrimonial). [Her ex-husband taught NY CPLR at NY Law School
for years] IMO, she was one of the worst judges in NYS. She was
eventually transferred out of Part V. A blessing given the havoc she
spread there. How she ever got herself elected Surrogate is a mystery.
Her decision here is typical of the way her reasoning works, which is to
say it doesn't. I expect she will be reversed on appeal.
|
