Representative Matters
Representation of Private Banking Client, as Lender, in a $18.8 Million Multi-State Secured Financing
Joseph P. Harrington, Yvonne St. John
Commercial Finance – Secured Lending – Multi-State Financing
Our commercial finance lawyers sometimes represent banks in transactions involving multiple parcels in multiple states. In one such transaction, Joe Harrington and Michelle Santoro represented one of the firm’s private lending clients on a multi-loan transaction, totaling $18.8 million, secured by four parcels in 3 states.
Representation of Wife in Successfully Arguing That Husband Pay Pendente Lite Child Support, Maintenance & Wife’s Counsel Fees
Matrimonial & Family Law – Pendente Lite Support – An Award of Pendente Lite Support & Counsel Fees
Pendente lite applications are an important part of the work of our matrimonial lawyers. Where the husband earned approximately $150,000 and the wife earned approximately $75,000, Kristen Mackay Pennessi argued that the husband pay pendente lite support. The Court ordered the husband to pay $988 per month in pendente lite maintenance and $3,293 per month in pendente lite child support. Kristen was also successful in arguing that the husband, as the monied spouse, be responsible for paying the wife’s counsel fees. The Court awarded the wife $10,000 in counsel fees.
Following a Divorce, Representation of Client in a Legal Name Change
Matrimonial & Family Law – Legal Name Change
Our lawyers sometimes represent clients on other matters, like legal name change. Here, where the client wanted to legally change her name, Kristen Mackay Pennessi prepared and filed all the required forms and documents necessary to finalize the client’s request for a legal name change.
Matter of Compulsory Interim Accounting Proceeding in the Estate of Jacob Heller, Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (2011)
Frank W. Streng, Stephen Davis
Surrogate’s Court Litigation – Trusts & Estates – Contested Accountings – Tax Apportionment – Equitable Adjustment
Sometimes, litigation in the Surrogate’s Court involves actions taken in another estate or trust that harm our clients. Stephen Davis, representing the executors of a surviving spouse’s estate, settled a dispute with the trustees of the estate of the first spouse to die, resulting from the requirement under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) for inclusion in the taxable estate of a surviving spouse the testamentary trust created by her pre-deceased husband for her lifetime benefit (QTIP Trust). Although the IRC specifically apportions the increase in taxes solely to the QTIP Trust, the IRC nonetheless creates conflict between next generation beneficiaries when executors are called upon to make a tax election unfavorable to them personally, but resulting in a greater tax benefit to the QTIP Trust. Reaching back to past estate litigation experience, Steve, now chair of the firm’s Tax Certiorari & Condemnation group, in collaboration with Frank W. Streng, chair of the firm’s Surrogate’s Court Litigation group, asserted at Surrogate’s Court and to the Trustee of the QTIP Trust, ancient and esoteric rules of fairness to achieve recoupment of the Estate’s $44,000 tax advantage (compared to a date of death valuation). In this instance, equitable adjustment, a form of implied contract, manifested itself as the duty of the QTIP Trust to make whole the beneficiaries of the surviving spouse’s estate from a loss imposed to achieve the Trust’s greater $345,000 tax benefit. Although equitable adjustment had been applied to other types of tax elections made by fiduciaries, e.g., a Warms Adjustment (1041 deduction vs. 706 deduction), there exists no reported case in New York applying the concept to a surviving spouse’s estate’s conflict with a QTIP Trust.
Representation of Foreign Investors in New York Theatrical Release
Corporate & General Business – Taxation – International Tax & Corporate Transaction
Henderson v. Planning Board of Village of Mamaroneck (Sup. Ct., Westchester Co. February 17, 2012)
Municipal Law & Land Use – Mootness of Application to Planning Board – Wetlands Issues
Municipal Law & Land Use lawyers sometimes use procedural defenses to defeat challenges to municipal action without the necessity of reaching the merits of the claim. Here, petitioners sought to annul a decision of the Planning Board of the Village of Mamaroneck that had granted a wetland permit to a neighboring property owner. However, at the time the court proceeding was commenced, the work authorized by the wetlands permit had been completed. Lester D. Steinman and Anna L. Georgiou, representing the Village’s Planning Board, successfully moved to dismiss the proceeding as moot. Petitioners challenged the Village Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of their appeal of a building permit issued to the same neighboring property owner. In a related case, the same petitioners sought to challenge a building permit on work that had already been completed. Les and Anna again persuaded the Supreme Court to dismiss the proceeding as moot.
[Read in full]Representation of Wife in Successfully Imputing $100,000 in income to Husband in Calculating Pendente Lite Child Support
Matrimonial & Family Law – Pendente Lite Child Support – Imputing Larger Income to Spouse than His Claimed Salary
Our matrimonial lawyers often represent clients on contested Pendente Lite applications. Where the husband claimed to earn only $10,000 per year working as the CEO in his family’s company, Kristen Mackay Pennessi & Kathleen Donelli successfully argued that the Court should impute $100,000 in income to the husband for purposes of calculating pendente lite child support. Specifically, the Court held that, where the family business was paying for most of the husband’s expenses (he was residing at the marital residence in Scarsdale and his statement of net worth showed expenses of more than $10,000 a month), the husband’s account of his own finances was not credible. Thus, the Court found that imputing income in the amount of $100,000 per year for pendente lite child support purposes was reasonable and appropriate.
Representation of Mother in Successfully Opposing Father’s request for Unsupervised Child Visitation & Interim Custody of Children
Matrimonial & Family Law – Unsupervised Child Visitation – Interim Custody of Children
Our matrimonial lawyers often deal with issues on child visitation and child custody. Here, Kristen Mackay Pennessi & Kathleen Donelli successfully argued that supervised visitation between the father and children should continue. After a hearing, the Court held that based on the credible testimony from the son’s therapist, the testimony from the children’s uncle, prior reports of Child Protective Services and the “rehearsed and forced” testimony of the Father and his witnesses, supervised visitation between the Father and the children should continue.
Client’s Use of IRS’s Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative
Taxation – Internal Revenue Service – Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative
Our Tax lawyers often advise clients on opportunities available through Internal Revenue Service-sponsored tax initiatives. The IRS has instituted a program – the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative – which may be of benefit to certain taxpayers who have offshore investments but have failed to disclose such investments and failed to report the income earned on such investments. Pursuant to US Treasury Regulations, disclosure of such investments is generally required on a “Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts” or “FBAR” form, in which a taxpayer reports the existence of such assets. Here, Howell Bramson advised a client in connection with the client’s participation in IRS’s new program.
Matter of Hasbrouck, Orange County Surrogate’s Court (Decision dated November 7, 2011 – File No. 2010/460)
Trusts & Estates – Surrogate’s Court Litigation – Will & Trust Contests – Opposing Summary Judgment Motion to Dismiss Objections to Probate
In will & trust contests, success or failure in a case often depends upon the facts uncovered through pre-trial discovery. Here, Katherine Sohr Jedlicka and Gail M. Boggio successfully opposed a dismissal of their client’s objections that were made to the probate of the decedent’s purported Will on the grounds of lack of due execution, undue influence, and fraud. The Court denied the other side’s motion for summary judgment, since the motion was made even before the completion of court-ordered discovery.
[Read in full]