IN RE: Agatha Solomon (2026)

Argued—December 9, 2025

DECISION & ORDER

M/

In a proceeding for the administration of the estate of Agatha Solomon, in which Lois M. Rosenblatt, as temporary administrator of the estate of Agatha Solomon, petitioned to judicially settle the final account of the estate, 29–11 Gillmore Street Funding Associates appeals from a decree of the Surrogate's Court, Queens County (Peter J. Kelly, S.), dated June 22, 2021.  The decree, upon an order of the same court dated May 20, 2021, denying the motion of 29–11 Gillmore Street Funding Associates to reject or modify a referee's report and confirming the referee's report, judicially settled the final account.

ORDERED that the decree is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The underlying facts of this case are set forth in our decision and order on a related appeal from a decree dated June 17, 2021 (see Matter of Solomon, _ AD3d _ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2021–05265;  decided herewith] ).

As is relevant to this appeal, after the sale of the subject property at public auction for the sum of $875,000, Lois M. Rosenblatt, the Public Administrator of Queens County (hereinafter the Public Administrator), as temporary administrator of the estate of Agatha Solomon (hereinafter the decedent), and 29–11 Gillmore Street Funding Associates (hereinafter Funding Associates) entered into a stipulation of settlement to permit closing before adjudication of the validity of the lien of the consolidated mortgage.  The stipulation of settlement provided that before releasing any portion of the net sales proceeds, the Public Administrator would file a judicial accounting and citation to Funding Associates and all other interested parties.  It was further stipulated that Funding Associates' “rights to the portion of the Net Sale Proceeds sufficient to satisfy the indebtedness under the Consolidated Note and Consolidated Mortgage shall not be waived or otherwise prejudiced by the issuance of the Release” of the lien of the consolidated mortgage.  Thereafter, the closing of the sale of the subject property occurred.

Subsequently, the Public Administrator filed an amended petition to judicially settle the final account of the decedent's estate.  At the time of the filing of the amended petition, the Public Administrator had paid administrative expenses and taxes totaling the sum of $170,740.68, consisting of federal income taxes, New York State income taxes, and the Public Administrator's expenses, among other things.

Funding Associates filed an answer objecting to the final account, alleging, inter alia, that the Public Administrator breached the stipulation of settlement by paying administrative expenses and taxes.  Funding Associates also alleged that its claims were superior to the interests of all other proposed payees.  The matter was referred to a referee to hear and report.  Following a trial, the referee issued a report dated November 2, 2020, in which, among other things, he recommended dismissal of the Funding Associates' objections regarding the alleged breach of the stipulation of settlement and claims of preference.  Thereafter, Funding Associates moved to reject or modify the referee's report.  In an order dated May 20, 2021, the Surrogate's Court denied the motion and confirmed the referee's report.  A decree dated June 22, 2021, was issued, upon the order, judicially settling the final account.  Funding Associates appeals.

Although the Surrogate's Court is entitled to reject the report of a referee and make new findings (see SCPA 506[4];  Matter of Cincotta, 139 AD3d 1058, 1059), “[t]he recommendations and report of a referee will not be disturbed when they are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” (Matter of Greenberg, 215 AD3d 967, 968 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Here, the referee clearly defined the issues as raised by the objections of Funding Associates.  Further, the referee's conclusion that the Public Administrator did not breach the stipulation of settlement and that Funding Associates' claims were not superior to the interests of all other proposed payees was amply supported by the record.  Since the record substantially supported the referee's findings and determination, the Surrogate's Court properly denied Funding Associates' motion to reject or modify the report, confirmed the report, and judicially settled the final account (see id. at 969).

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court