Matter of Burnett

Opinion

Matter of Burnett

2026 NY Slip Op 04191

July 1, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of Lillian Burnett, deceased. New Homes Express, Inc., appellant; Sadie Spurill, et al., respondents. (File No. 1034/01)

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 1, 2026

2022-06431

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

Paul Wooten

Laurence L. Love

Phillip Hom, JJ.

Massoud & Pashkoff, LLP, New York, NY (Lisa Pashkoff of counsel), for appellant.

Alice A. Nicholson, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent Sadie Spurill.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding for the administration of the estate of Lillian Burnett, in which New Homes Express, Inc., petitioned for the court's approval for the settlement of a title claim to certain real property, New Homes Express, Inc., appeals from an order of the Surrogate's Court, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, S.), dated August 12, 2020. The order, in effect, denied the petition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decedent, Lillian Burnett, died intestate in 1995. In 2004, New Homes Express, Inc. (hereinafter New Homes), allegedly acquired certain real property located in Brooklyn that was owned by the decedent in a transaction with the decedent's distributees. In 2007, New Homes commenced an action, inter alia, to quiet title to the property, which several of the decedent's distributees opposed. In 2012, the Surrogate's Court issued letters of administration with limitations for the decedent's estate to the respondent Sadie Spurill. In July 2020, New Homes petitioned the court to approve a proposed settlement of $41,000 to the decedent's distributees resolving its title claim to the property. In an order dated August 12, 2020, the court, in effect, denied the petition. New Homes appeals.

"[T]he provisions of the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act implicitly grant the Surrogate broad discretionary powers. It provides that the court shall 'exercise full and complete general jurisdiction in law and in equity to administer justice in all matters relating to estates and the affairs of decedents'" (Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518, 524, quoting SCPA 201[3]). "The role of the Surrogate's Court is to preserve and enhance, as far as possible, the assets of decedents' estates" (Matter of Kahn, 173 AD3d 744, 745 [internal quotation marks omitted]). This includes the power to authorize an executor or administrator to compromise debts or any claim which must be settled for the estate to be settled (see SCPA 1813[1]; Matter of Kahn, 173 AD3d at 745). "In fulfilling these duties, a Surrogate should be guided by the best interests of the estate" (Matter of Kahn, 173 AD3d at 745; see Matter of Jones, 8 NY2d 24, 27).

Here, New Homes submitted evidence of the property's fair market value in 2004. The respondents, however, have disputed the validity of the sale of the property in 2004. As New Homes failed to establish that a valid sale of the property was effectuated in 2004, and failed to [*2]submit evidence as to the current fair market value of the property, New Homes failed to establish that it was in the best interests of the estate to accept the settlement. Accordingly, the Surrogate's Court providently exercised its discretion by, in effect, denying the petition (see generally Matter of Kahn, 173 AD3d at 745-746).

DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, LOVE and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court