Court Opinion

ID: 9945573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:11:48.785292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:32.328490
License: Public Domain

Matter of Liongson-Branch
               2024 NY Slip Op 30586(U)
                    February 22, 2024
          Surrogate's Court, New York County
         Docket Number: File No. 2013-3328/D
                  Judge: Hilary Gingold
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.
                                                                                   New York County Surrogate's Court
                                                                                       DATA ENTRY DEPT.
        SURROGATE'S COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
        COUNTY OF NEW YORK                                                               FEB 1·2 2024
        -----------------------------------------x
        In the Matter of the Petition of Lee R.
        Bember as a person interested in the
        Estate of
                                                                  DECISION AFTER TRIAL
                      LYDIA LIONGSON-BRANCH,
                                                                  File No.: 2013-3328/D
                                          Deceased,

        for the Discovery and Turnover of
        Property.
        -----------------------------------------x

        GING OLD, S.

             In this reverse discovery and turnover proceeding (SCPA 2105)

        in the estate of Lydia Liongson-Branch (Decedent), petitioner Lee

        R. Bember (Bember) alleged that he is a person interested in this

        estate   as    the    "previously      listed     and   intended        beneficiary          of

        certain of decedent's accounts held at Ally Bank," that Decedent's

        daughter,     respondent Yolly M. Keane (Keane), the administrator of

        Decedent's      estate,     amended,       altered,     or    changed      the       listed

        beneficiary on the accounts from Sember to that of the estate and

        that the accounts should be turned over to him.                    Keane denied the

        allegations.

             Decedent        died   on   October    27,   2012,      as   the    result       of     an

        accident.      Letters of administration were issued to Keane by the

        Connecticut Probate Court.           Thereafter,        this court issued letters

        of administration with limitations to Keane for the sole purpose

                                                    1

[* 1]
        of    prosecuting    an     action    for   Decedent's     personal      injury      and

        wrongful death in New York State Supreme Court,                  New York County

        (Index No. 158981/13).

               In this SCPA 2105 proceeding,              a non-jury trial was held on

        February    8,    2024,     before    the   undersigned.        Bember    was   self-

        represented.        Keane    appeared by counsel.          Bember     testified       in

        narrative form for himself and then was cross-examined by Keane's

        attorney.        After Bember rested,           Keane testified and was cross-

        examined by Bember.         Matthew Sakkas (Sakkas), the attorney retained

        by Keane in the Supreme Court action,                also testified on Keane's

        behalf.     Bember declined to cross-examine Sakkas.

               At no time during the proceeding, including during the trial,

        did    Bember     produce    any     documentary     evidence    to   support        his

        allegations, and his trial testimony was devoid of even an iota of

        such evidence.

               Three exhibits, introduced by Keane's attorney, were admitted

        into evidence.       The first,       "Resp's 1",    is Bember's letter, dated

        April 7, 2022, to the court, the original of which was previously

        filed with the court.         In that letter, Bember stated that Decedent

        was his aunt.       However, on cross-examination, Bember admitted that

        his statement was false.           Rather, he testified that he and Decedent

        had a romantic involvement.

               "Resp's 2" in evidence is the Affidavit Responding to Subpoena

        to Testify and Produce Documents,                sworn to on July 18,      2 02 3,    by

                                                    2

[* 2]
        Jacqueline Lemma      (Lemma),      Director -          Deposit Operations of Ally

        Bank, with documents attached. According to her sworn affidavit,

        Lemma described her duties            as    supervision and oversight of the

        Escheatment and Document Processing teams for Ally Bank, including

        legal orders and subpoena reviews.

               Bember did not dispute having been served with a copy of the

        documents, along with all relevant exhibits, prior to trial. Lemma

        avers in her affidavit that Ally conducted a search for documents

        responsive to the three separate subpoenas duces tecum served on

        Ally Bank by Bember's prior counsel and/or by Keane's attorney.

        Each   of   the   subpoenas    duces       tecum    called      for   Ally    to    produce

        documents    from   January    1,    2010,      more     than   two-and-a-half-years

        prior to Decedent's death, to present, in connection with Bember's

        allegations.

               Two of the subpoenas duces tecum, copies of which are attached

        to Lemma's affidavit, called for the production of documents about

        any accounts of any type at Ally Bank or any related institution

        of Decedent in any ownership form,                 whether jointly or otherwise,

        any    amendments,      changes        or       alterations,          the     beneficiary

        designations,     amendments or changes to beneficiary designations,

        any    allegations,    investigations            and     determinations,           and   all

        documents     connected   to        accounts       in    Decedent's         name    or   any

        permutation thereof.          The third subpoena duces tecum,                  a copy of

        which is also attached to Lemma's affidavit,                     required production

                                                    3

[* 3]
        of documents with respect to accounts in Bember's name,                                         including

        any    accounts    in    trust        for    him       or    on     which      he    was        the    named

        beneficiary.

                Ally Bank's responses to the three subpoenas duces tecum show

        that it "had no record of any account in the name of Lydia Liongson-

        Branch" or of any accounts in Bember's name or of which he was a

        beneficiary.       Also attached to Lemma's affidavit are eight pages

        produced by Ally Bank of typewritten notes of personnel, including

        supervisors,      showing       that        Bember      was       informed,         in     response         to

        telephone       calls    from    him        to   Ally        Bank,        on   more       than        thirty

        occasions, that Ally Bank had no record of any accounts, including

        trust    accounts,      belonging           to   Decedent,          and.       also,       on    multiple

        occasions,      that there was no records of accounts on which Bember

        was a beneficiary.

                Additionally,          although          not        pled,     Bember           raised          at    a

        conference      before     the    undersigned               and     again      during           his    trial

        testimony, that he was the beneficiary of a Vantis Life Insurance

        Contract       (Vantis Contract)            owned by Decedent.                      As was       the case

        with    the    Ally     Bank    accounts,          Bember           produced         no    documentary

        evidence in support of his claim, and his testimony was devoid of

        any    other    evidence       that    would       support          his    allegations            in    this

        regard.       In contrast, Resp's 3 in evidence is the Business Records

        Affidavit,      sworn to on February 5,                     2024,    by Zandra Rawlins-Adens

        (Rawlins-Adens),         a paralegal in the law department for The Penn

                                                           4

[* 4]
        Mutual Life Insurance Company (Penn).               Attached to Rawlins-Adens'

        affidavit are nineteen pages of records kept by Penn in the normal

        course of business. These documents make clear that there was no

        such policy issued by Penn in which Bember was ever identified as

        a beneficiary.        In the affidavit, Rawlins-Adens swears that these

        nineteen pages "are exact duplicates of the original records for

        the     subject    Vant is    Life   Insurance    Contract."         Nowhere      in   the

        documents     is   there      any mention of      Bember,   as   a   beneficiary or

        otherwise.        At trial,     Sakkas testified that these documents were

        produced in response to a subpoena duces tecum.

                SCPA 2105(1) provides:

                A person having a claim to property as defined in [SCPA]
                103 or the proceeds thereof alleged to be in possession
                of or under the control of a fiduciary may present to
                the court which has jurisdiction over the estate a
                petition  showing the    facts  and praying that     the
                fiduciary be required to show cause why he should not be
                required to deliver the property or the proceeds
                thereof.

                Bember, as petitioner, bears the burden of establishing title

        to    any   property by       "clear   and   convincing     evidence"     ( see    e.g. r

        Matter of Rivera,            9 Misc 3d 1102 (A)     [Sur Ct,     Nassau Cty 2005],

        citing Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 AD2d 822 [2 nd Dept 1982] and Matter

        of Effross, 43 AD2d 539 [1 st Dept 1973]).             In this instance, Bember

        has completely and unequivocally failed to meet his burden.                             In

        fact,    all the documentary evidence and credible testimony adduced

        show that Bember's allegations are completely without merit.

                                                     5

[* 5]
                After a non-jury trial,              Bember having rested. Affording him

        every     inference      which       may     be        properly    drawn       from     the     facts

        presented and viewing the                  facts       in the     light most         favorable to

        him, the court determines that, upon the documentary evidence and

        testimony presented,           there       is no rational basis upon which any

        fact    finder could find in favor of Bember.                               In sum,    Bember has

        wholly failed to meet his burden of proving by clear and convincing

        evidence,    or    even by any evidence,                   that       there    is    any property

        belonging     to     him     in      possession           or    control         of    Keane,       the

        administrator       of   the      estate,         or    that    she    in     any    way     amended,

        altered,    or     changed     the    listed beneficiary                 from       Bember    on   any

        property at Ally Bank or anywhere else.

                Accordingly, it is

                ORDERED that the relief sought by Bember is denied and the

        petition is dismissed in its entirety.

                The clerk of the court is directed to mail a copy of this

        decision, which constitutes the order of the court, to Bember and

        to Keane's counsel by certified mail at the addresses at the foot

        herein.

        Dated:     February 22, 2024

                                                           6

[* 6]
        Mr. Lee Bember
        225 Marigold Avenue
        Bridgeport, CT 06610
        (Self-represented petitioner)

        Robert L. Greener, Esq.
        112 Madison Avenue, 6 th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        (Attorney for respondent)

                                         7

[* 7]