Matter of Stomporowski

2025 NY Slip Op 50398(U)
CourtSurrogate's Court, Erie County
DecidedMarch 25, 2025
DocketFile No. 2022-1206/B
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 50398(U) (Matter of Stomporowski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Surrogate's Court, Erie County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Stomporowski, 2025 NY Slip Op 50398(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

Matter of Stomporowski (2025 NY Slip Op 50398(U)) [*1]
Matter of Stomporowski
2025 NY Slip Op 50398(U)
Decided on March 25, 2025
Surrogate's Court, Erie County
Mosey, S.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on March 25, 2025
Surrogate's Court, Erie County


In the Matter of Gary S. Stomporowski,
a/k/a GARY STANISLAUS STOMPOROWSKI, Deceased.




File No. 2022-1206/B

PAUL J. SMALDONE, ESQ.
Appearing for Diane Sikorski and Tina Niespodzinski

KEITH ROSSO, ESQ.
Guardian ad Litem for Unknown Heirs

HON. LETITIA JAMES, NYS Attorney General
Appearing for Unknown Heirs
Melissa Thore, Esq., of Counsel Acea M. Mosey, S.

Gary S. Stomporowski [hereafter, decedent], a bus driver in the Town of Cheektowaga, died intestate at the age of 68 on September 26, 2021, leaving an estate valued at approximately $250,000.

Decedent's nearest living relatives were a maternal aunt [FN1] and numerous cousins on both the maternal side and paternal side. Letters of Administration were issued to two of those cousins, Diane Sikorski [hereafter Diane], a paternal first cousin, and Tina Niespodzinski [hereafter Tina], a maternal first cousin. A petition to judicially settle the account of the co-administrators has been filed, a Guardian ad Litem [hereafter, the GAL] was appointed for possible unknown heirs, and a kinship hearing was scheduled. On consent of the parties, that hearing was held before a Court Attorney on a hear and report basis. The parties also waived a written referee report and consented that I could decide this matter based upon the hearing transcript and the documentary evidence (see SCPA 506[6][c]). The GAL has filed his report and recommendation, and this matter has been finally submitted.

I now find and decide as follows.

(I)

"In all cases involving pedigree and the distribution of intestate property, it is first [*2]necessary to establish the identity of the common ancestor and from that point to construct the true family tree, to which all claimants must attach themselves to be successful" (Matter of Whalen, 146 Misc 176, 180 [1932], emphasis added; see also, Matter of Lelito, 20 Misc 3d 1120[A] [2008]). "When persons of the nearest degree of relationship establish [their] standing, those more remote are excluded" (Matter of Henesey, 3 Misc 2d 660, 662 [1956], quoting Matter of Wendel, 143 Misc 480 [1932], aff'd 3 AD2d 832 [1957]). A person "who seeks to establish an interest in a decedent's estate as a collateral relative must show that all lines of descent which would precede his or her claim as a distributee are exhausted" (Matter of Dinzey, NYLJ, June 9, 2003, at 33, col 4).

Unlike an informal search seeking information about a person's personal family history, the nature of the proof required in kinship proceedings is more stringent and has become well-established over the years (2 Harris 5th, NY Estates: Probate Administration & Litigation, § 21:19). "Evidence of pedigree takes the form of oral testimony, preferably by a disinterested person such as a professional genealogist, with documentary evidence required to corroborate it" (Matter of Kuberka, 22 Misc 3d 1104[A] [2008], citing 6 Warren's Heaton, Surrogate's Court Practice § 74:17(2)(b)(iii) at 74-57 [7th ed.] and Matter of Logue, NYLJ, June 19, 1998, at 30, col 3; see also, Matter of Gavin, 41 Misc 3d 232 [2013] and Matter of Antolin, 2020 NY Slip Op 34482[U], 2020 NY Misc LEXIS 15359, dec. Mar. 6, 2020). "[C]laimants who fail to offer evidence to exclude the possible existence of persons who would have an equal right to share in the estate fail to establish their rights as distributees (Matter of Hasser, 187 Misc 368 [1946])" (Matter of Darenzio, NYLJ, July 23, 2010, at 36, col 5).

A claimant has the burden of proving kinship (see, e.g., Matter of Flavin, 15 Misc 3d 1104[A] [2007]), and he or she must establish that he or she is the decedent's closest blood relative, as defined by EPTL 4-1.1 (see Matter of Dinzey, supra). This burden is met by a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Matter of Paul, 2017 NY Misc LEXIS 674, 2018 NY Slip Op 30344[U] [dec. Feb. 17, 2017]; see also, Matter of Whelan, 93 AD2d 891 [1983]). For kinship to be established to the Court's satisfaction, a claimant must make an evidentiary showing (1) how he or she is related to the decedent, and (2) that no other persons of the same or a nearer degree of relationship survived the decedent. Upon proof that no heirs other than those before the Court exist, the class of heirs may be "closed" (see, e.g., Matter of Alao, NYLJ, March 19, 2002, at 20, col 5).

In cases where there are claimants at the cousin class, this Court [Howe, J.] pointed out in Matter of Perry, 29 Misc 3d 1221(A) [2009], aff'd 72 AD3d 1590 [2010], that:

"In kinship proceedings where claimants claim to be the decedent's cousins, proof is required to establish that they are issue of grandparents (EPTL 4-1.1[a][6]). As I stated in Matter of Pacosz, 'In order for the Court to determine the status on this level, a common ancestor must be identified (Matter of Tim, 6 Misc 2d 47 [1956], aff'd 8 AD2d 720 [1959]). Until such identification is made, no family tree can be traced, and no judicial determination of pedigree can be made (id., at 51). It is only from that point on that a family tree can be constructed so as to allow parties an opportunity to successfully attach themselves (Matter of Dinzey, supra)' (Matter of Pacosz, 22 Misc 3d 1105[A]).
Thus, the identity of the grandparents, and the identity and number of their children are critical components in a kinship determination, not only as a starting point to allow cousin claimants the opportunity to establish their status, but to close the classes of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, as well" (emphasis added).

Finally, I note that, pursuant to SCPA 2225(b), if three years have elapsed since a decedent's death, a Court may determine that there are no persons other than those before it entitled to share in the decedent's estate provided the parties have conducted a diligent and exhaustive search "from all available sources to ascertain the existence of distributees." In this case, because decedent died more than three years ago, this presumption would be available if the other elements have been met. Whether this presumption applies is addressed in discussing the appropriate classes.


(II)

At the kinship hearing, three witnesses testified: Tina, Diane, and Timothy Deck [hereafter Deck], a genealogist. I find all witnesses' testimony to be credible and persuasive.[FN2] Five exhibits were entered into evidence, including a binder of documents [hereafter, the Genealogist binder] compiled by Deck.


Spouse

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

Related

Matter of Stomporowski
2025 NY Slip Op 50398(U) (Erie Surrogate's Court, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 50398(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-stomporowski-nysurcterie-2025.