1 No. 27
In the Matter of Walter Sakow, as de facto Executor &c. of Max Sakow,
Deceased. Walter Sakow,
Respondent, Diana Sakow et al.,
Appellants, Harriet Sillen, et al.,
Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 31
March 21, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Diana Sakow, pro se, appellant.
Evelyn Breslaw, pro se, appellant.
James N. Blair, for respondents Sillen, et al.
Kenneth N. Miller, for respondent Walter Sakow.
_________________________________________________________________
WESLEY, J.:
The narrow issue presented on this appeal arises in the context of a
longstanding sibling dispute over the assets of their father's estate.
When Max Sakow died on January 30, 1956, he either owned outright or
had interests in a number of parcels of real estate. He was survived
by his wife, Rose, now deceased, and three children -- Walter Sakow,
Diana Sakow and Evelyn Sakow Breslaw. At the time of their father's
death Diana was 15 years old, Evelyn was 20 and Walter was 25.
Unbeknownst to his daughters, Max Sakow's will left 1/3 of his estate
to his wife and 2/3 to the children, with the shares to his daughters
to be held in trust until they reached the age of 23.
Rose Sakow received letters testamentary pursuant to a decree entered
on March 5, 1956; however, the trusts were never formed and her
daughters did not receive any distribution from the estate. According
to Mrs. Sakow, she left all business decisions with respect to the
estate to her son and signed any document he presented. Walter Sakow
apparently enjoyed unfettered discretion in controlling the estate
properties for the next several decades, arranging the sale of some
parcels and gaining either an outright or partial ownership interest
in others.
In the early 1980s Diana Sakow and Evelyn Breslaw learned of the will
and its contents, and in 1984 instituted a compulsory accounting
SNIPPETS:
In the Matter of Walter Sakow, as de facto Executor &c. of Max Sakow, Deceased.
Walter Sakow, Respondent, Diana Sakow et al., Appellants, Harriet Sillen, et al., Respondents.
Diana Sakow, pro se, appellant.
The narrow issue presented on this appeal arises in the context of a longstanding sibling
Notices of pendency were filed in 1987, and renewed by court order dated February 26, 1990,
During the liability phase of the ensuing bifurcated trial the Surrogate on March 18, 1994
The record indicates that the sisters did not renew the notices prior to their statutory
The sisters appealed to the Appellate Division, which modified the Surrogate's order and held
In 1999 the sisters again moved for the appointment of a temporary receiver to operate and
The Surrogate reasoned that the strict procedural requirements for extension of a notice of
nothing prevented it from entering an order permitting the filing of notices of pendency to
This provisional remedy authorized by the Legislature evolved from the common law doctrine of
a search of all court records was required to determine whether real property in which a
Indeed, we have referred to a litigant's ability to file a notice of pendency as an
The notice of pendency is a unique provisional remedy, in that "the statutory scheme permits
The ability to file a notice of pendency is "a privilege that can be lost if abused" (Siegel,
Several other courts in New York have held that successive filings are not permitted after a
We prefer the certainty of the "no second chance rule," as it preserves the delicate balance
|
