Court Opinion

ID: 9962538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:10:18.592477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:01.147955
License: Public Domain

Przybyl v JPMorgan Chase, N.A.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31344(U)
                     April 16, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 152073/2022
               Judge: Dakota D. Ramseur
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 152073/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

           SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
           COUNTY OF NEW YORK
           -----------------------------------------------------------------X
           IRENA PRZYBYL, JULIAN PRZYBYL, BARBARA
           KROL, BARTOSZ MARCIN PRZYBYL, SZYMON                                 Hon. Dakota D. Ramseur
           GRZEGORZ PRZYBYL,

           Plaintiffs,                                                          Index No. 152073/2022

           -against-

           JPMORGAN CHASE, N.A.,

           Defendant.
           -----------------------------------------------------------------X
                                               ~ • •PUSEI1J ORDER

                   Plaintiffs Irena Przybyl, Julian Przybyl, Barbara Krol, Bartosz Marcin Przybyl, and

           Szymon Grzegorz Przybyl (collectively, the "plaintiffs"), having moved by the filing of an

           Amended Notice of Motion, on December 7, 2023, seeking an Order, pursuant to CPLR

           3001 and 3212 (the "motion"), awarding Plaintiffs distribution of monies maintained in

           Premier Plus Checking Account, ending in 1196 (the "1196 Account") and Savings

           Account, ending in 9093 (the "9093 Account," and collectively, the "Chase Accounts")

           (NYSCEF doc. #49, Chase Statements), in the name of decedent, Ursula Osburne (the

           "decedent"), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase"), incorrectly named herein as

           "JPMorgan Chase, N.A.," and Chase having opposed the motion, the Court having

           reviewed the parties' submissions finds as follows:

                   On October 30, 2019, the decedent died intestate in Gdansk, Poland. Plaintiffs make

           claim to the full balance of the Chase Accounts as foreign beneficiaries of the decedent's

[* 1]                                                       3 of 6
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 152073/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

           estate (the "Estate"), under a Deed of Succession duly executed and recorded under Polish

           law on April 23, 2020. (NYSCEF doc. #35, Deed of Succession.)

                  On January 14, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a petition for ancillary letters of administration

           over the Chase Accounts in the Surrogate's Court in Suffolk County. (NYSCEF doc. #40,

           In re Estate of Ursula Osburne, Case # 2021-744.)            The Surrogate's Court denied

           jurisdiction for the reasons outlined in this Court's previous order on Chase's motion to

           dismiss (motion # 1), in which the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for conversion.

           (NYSCEF doc. #23, Decision and Order on Motion.) In that opinion, the Court left

           standing "whether plaintiffs, as mere beneficiaries of Osburne's estate, have pled a

           possessory interest in the [Chase Accounts]." (NYSCEF doc. #23, at 4.)

                  On the instant motion (motion #2), plaintiffs seek summary judgment on their sole

           remaining claim, which requests that the Court issue a declaratory judgment that recognizes

           their lawful status as the Estate's foreign beneficiaries, and so directs that Chase distribute

           the balance of the Chase Accounts to the plaintiffs, under EPTL § 13-3.5(a) and CPLR §

           3001. (NYSCEF doc. #42, Amended Notice of Motion.)

                  In deciding the validity of a foreign beneficiary's legal interest in an estate, courts

           consider: (i) the party's attested basis for having been conferred an exclusive beneficial

           interest; and (ii) "such other proof required by the court in which the action or proceeding

           is brought." EPTL § 13-3.5(a)(l); see also CPLR § 3001 (conferring broad authority to

           declare "the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy").

                  In support of their motion, plaintiffs have provided attestations by each beneficiary

            (NYSCEF doc. #53, Affirmations of Plaintiffs), a government-issued and recorded Deed

[* 2]                                                 4 of 6
                                                                                                         INDEX NO. 152073/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

           of Succession (supra},. and an accompanying affidavit of Jaroslaw Kurpiejewski, LL.M., a

           Polish lawyer who provided unrebutted testimony of the Deed of Succession's use and

           legal validity in Poland (NYSCEF doc. #38, Affidavit of Jaroslaw Kurpiejewski).

                   The Deed of Succession certifies that, "by virtue of Law," each plaintiff is a

           "statutory heir" in having "acquired" a defined fractional interest, collectively making up

           the entirety, of the decedent's estate, as set out in the Deed of Succession. (NYSCEF doc.

           #35 §§ 1-2 (bold in original). Notary Konrad Stula entered the Deed of Succession in an

           official government registry, identified as "Notary's Register A," under registry number

           "1543/2020." The notary further recorded having collected statutory fees, which are

           mandated by law whether or not the entry is "[made] by a Notary or Court." 1 (NYSCEF

           doc. #35 §4.) The unrebutted evidence provides that, under Polish law, the Deed of

           Succession is "as equally binding as a court confirmation" and confers self-executing rights

           to its named beneficiaries. (NYSCEF #38 ,r,r 6-9, 11-14.)

                   Each plaintiff affirmed under penalty of perjury in the Surrogate's Court action to

           being one of five interested beneficiaries under the Deed of Succession. (NYSCEF doc.

           #53.) No other interested parties or creditors have claimed an interest in the Chase

           Accounts during the four and a half years since the decedent's death, as affirmed in these

           filings and the plaintiffs' petition for ancillary letters of administration (NYSCEF #52 at

           2-4 ), and reflected in the Deed of Succession (NYSCEF doc. #3 5).

           1
             As noted in the Kurpiejewski affidavit: "The institution of a notary in Poland differs significantly from
           "notary publics" in the US. To become a notary in Poland, one must graduate from law school, complete
           a three-year apprenticeship and pass a notary exam. A notary's professional responsibility and required
           diligence is similar to that of an attorney. A notary is also responsible for the form and binding effect of
           prepared notarial deeds." (NYSCEF doc. 38 ifl l n.4.)

                                                             5 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                           INDEX NO. 152073/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

                  Accordingly, based on review of the evidence, it is now hereby

                  ORDERED, that the plaintiffs' motion is granted, and it is further

                  ORDERED, that Chase is directed to tum over and deliver to plaintiffs' counsel of

           record, Benjamin Robert Rajotte, Esq. (made payable to "Ilasz & Associates"), the full and

           complete proceeds of the (i) 1196 Account, which maintained a balance of $527,440.99 as

           of January 4, 2024, and (ii) the 9093 Account, which maintained a balance of$15,617.51

           as of January 4, 2024, and it is furtherre

                  ORDERED, that within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order, Chase shall deliver

           to plaintiffs' counsel of record, Benjamin Robert Rajotte, Esq., (i) a Cashier's Check, made

            payable to "Ilasz & Associates," in the amount of the full balance of the 1196 Account as

            of the date of the Check, and (ii) a Cashier's Check, made payable to "Ilasz & Associates,"

            in the amount of the full balance of the 9093 Account as of the date of the Check, which

           monies shall be distributed by Plaintiffs' counsel to the individual plaintiffs in accordance

           with the Deed of Succession, and it is further

                   ORDERED, that each party is to bear their own costs and expenses.

                  This order constitutes the decision of the Court.

                       DATE                                      DAKOTA D. RAMSEUR, J.S.C.
                                                                 HON. DAKOTA D. RAMSEUR
                                                                                             J.S.C.

                                                        6 of 6
[* 4]