Matter of Andrews

2025 NY Slip Op 52092(U)
CourtSurrogate's Court, Saratoga County
DecidedMarch 31, 2025
DocketFile No. 2023-303/E
StatusUnpublished
AuthorSchopf

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 52092(U) (Matter of Andrews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Surrogate's Court, Saratoga County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Andrews, 2025 NY Slip Op 52092(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

Matter of Andrews (2025 NY Slip Op 52092(U)) [*1]
Matter of Andrews
2025 NY Slip Op 52092(U)
Decided on March 31, 2025
Surrogate's Court, Saratoga County
Schopf, S.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected in part through January 07, 2026; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on March 31, 2025
Surrogate's Court, Saratoga County


In the Matter of the Estate of William C. Andrews, Deceased




File No. 2023-303/E

Phillip Vacchio, Esq.
Attorney for the Estate (Barbara J. Iwan, Executor)
Herzog Law Firm
7 Southwoods Boulevard
Albany, New York 12211

Susan Salvo
Objectant, pro se Jonathan G. Schopf, S.

This matter comes before the Court on a motion by Objectant, Susan Salvo, which seeks, inter alia, to compel discovery from Petitioner in relation to the pending judicial settlement of the within Estate.

Objectant's Notice of Motion dated February 15, 2025 includes a document entitled Motion to Compel Documents Supporting the Accounting by Executor which is three (3) pages long (herein referred to as the "Motion"), a two (2) page document entitled Objections to Accounting (herein referred to as "Supplemental Discovery", and five (5) pages of various correspondence between the parties and counsel (herein referred to as the "Correspondence").

The Court also has reviewed the Petitioner's Opposition papers dated March 18, 2025 and verified March 14, 2025 (herein the "Opposition"), and the March 26, 2025 Reply papers of Objectant (herein the "Reply"). The original return date of this motion was April 2, 2025 pursuant to this Court's scheduling order. This matter being now fully submitted, the Court issues the following decision and order.

The statutory mandate that all matters "material and necessary" which bear on the controversy be disclosed (CPLR §3101) is construed liberally; however, a party is not entitled to "unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure" (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v RLC Med., P.C., 150 AD3d 1034 [2d Dept 2017] [internal quotations marks and citations omitted]; Matter of Eckert, 60 Misc 3d 1007 [Sur Ct, Queens County 2018] [court has broad power to regulate discovery]). The party seeking discovery must demonstrate that the material sought is relevant or could properly lead to relevant evidence (see State Farm Mut., 150 AD3d at 1035; see also [*2]Brennan v Demydyuk, 196 AD3d 1113 [4th Dept 2021][noting that "the pleadings determine the scope of discovery in a particular action"]). Additionally, objections to an accounting and the account itself constitute as pleadings in Surrogate's Court (see SCPA 302 [1] [a]; Matter of Baum, 7 Misc 3d 1027[A], 801 N.Y.S.2d 230 [Sur Ct, Nassau County 2005]).

On page two (2) of the Motion, Objectant lists thirteen (13) items that she seeks documents to substantiate the charges reflected on the Amended Accounting at various pages. In the Opposition papers, Petitioner avers that for the first twelve (12) of the items in the list, that there are no backup documents in the possession of the Petitioner to provide to the Objectant for the reasons listed in the Opposition papers by the Petitioner.

Through discovery a party may be required to provide only those items which are in the possession, custody or control of the party served. Such items must be preexisting and tangible to be subject to discovery and production. Notably, a party may not be compelled to provide information that does not exist or to create new documents (Cruz v. Singh, 2017 NY Misc. LEXIS 28350 [Sup. Ct. June 27, 2017] citing Orzech v Smith, 12 AD3d 1150 [4lh Dept., 2004]).

In regard to the fifth (5th) item, it appears from the Opposition papers that certain Estate funds may have been transferred to a personal account of the Executor (acct no. XXXX180). The Petitioner shall provide such statements as reflects the transfer of the $3,000.00 to one Kelly James from such account and/or the reimbursement to the Executor therefrom, to the extent that such transfer exists. All other identifying information and transaction information not related to Estate assets may be redacted.

In regard to the thirteenth (13th) item, Petitioner avers that statements were provided to Objectant on January 29, 2025 for storage unit costs, National Grid utility bills, and water bills. It would appear that as with the above twelve (12) items, Petitioners are not in possession of any other documents responsive to the request.

In the Supplemental Discovery documents, the Objectant appears to make document demands. Whether these demands were previously made or if this is a cut and paste of other items is unknown to the Court, but for purposes of this motion, the Court will consider the items listed on Page 4 and Page 5 of the Objections to Accounting document attached to the motion papers as document demands pertaining to the Amended Accounting and will rule accordingly in the order that these items are listed by the Objectant in her moving papers:

#4 — Invoices from Malina Mannarino shall be provided to the extent that they exist and are in the possession of the Petitioner and have not previously been provided;

#10 — Shivers Law Group invoices shall be provided to the extent that they exist and are in the possession of the Petitioner and have not previously been provided;

#11 — Account statements which reflect withdrawals and transfers to and from bank accounts with the account numbers of XXXXX794 and XXXXX879 on March 21, 2023 shall be provided to the extent that they exist and are in the possession of the Petitioner and have not previously been provided;

#12 — Citibank statement for a disbursement made on April 3, 2023 shall be provided to the extent that they exist and are in the possession of the Petitioner and have not previously been provided;

#13 — This item is more properly an objection as to the propriety of the accounting, the actions of the fiduciary, and the transaction at issue, not a demand for discovery and can be explored by the Objectant at a hearing, discovery with regard to this item is denied;

#17 — This item is more properly an objection as to the propriety of the accounting, the [*3]actions of the fiduciary, and the transaction at issue, not a demand for discovery and can be explored by the Objectant at a hearing, discovery with regard to this item is denied;

#21 — This item is more properly an objection as to the propriety of the accounting, the actions of the fiduciary, and the transaction at issue, not a demand for discovery and can be explored by the Objectant at a hearing, discovery with regard to this item is denied;

#32 — This item is more properly an objection as to the propriety of the accounting, the actions of the fiduciary, and the transaction at issue, not a demand for discovery and can be explored by the Objectant at a hearing, discovery with regard to this item is denied;

#35 — This item is more properly an objection as to the propriety of the accounting, the actions of the fiduciary, and the transaction at issue, not a demand for discovery and can be explored by the Objectant at a hearing, discovery with regard to this item is denied;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. RLC Medical, P.C.
2017 NY Slip Op 3979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Brennan v. Demydyuk
2021 NY Slip Op 04425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Orzech v. Smith
12 A.D.3d 1150 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 52092(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-andrews-nysurctsaratoga-2025.