Administration Proceeding, Estate of Tamar Silas, Deceased. v. << (2026)

The decedent, Tamar Silas, passed away on October 24, 2024 as a result of an apartment fire, leaving a spouse and five (5) children as her distributees and heirs-at-law. By petition verified August 6, 2025, and as amended on October 10, 2025, the decedent's daughter, Myasia Ford ("petitioner"), sought the issuance of limited letters of administration for the purpose of commencing a cause of action for decedent's wrongful death. The decedent's spouse, Lorenzo Redd, ("Mr. Redd") submitted a waiver and consent to petitioner's appointment.

By cross-petition verified August 19, 2025, the decedent's son, Kadeem Ford, ("cross-petitioner"), sought the issuance of limited letters of administration for the same purpose. Waivers and consents to the cross-petition were filed by the remaining three (3) children.

Petitioner filed verified objections to the cross-petition, claiming the cross-petitioner was unfit to serve due to an "extensive criminal history," a litany of unspecified offenses involving "deception, disregard for legal obligations, repeated violations of the law," and a pattern of driving infractions. Additionally, petitioner contends that as a New York State resident, and decedent's primary caregiver, petitioner has demonstrated her fitness and suitability to serve in a fiduciary capacity.

On February 6, 2026, the petitioner's objections were amended to include the cross-petitioner's failure to cite the decedent's surviving spouse, Mr. Redd, as a surviving heir and distributee of the decedent. The petitioner obtained and filed with the court a certified transcript reflecting the marriage of the decedent to Mr. Redd on August 27, 2008 in East Meadow, New York.

Immediately thereafter, the cross-petitioner amended his cross-petition to include Mr. Redd as a necessary party and caused a supplemental citation to issue and be served upon him, returnable on September 10, 2026, at which time jurisdiction with respect to the cross-petition was complete.

As the statute of limitations of the contemplated lawsuit is set to expire on October 24, 2026, an immediate hearing commenced on September 10, 2026, and continued on September 15, 2026, at which time, Mr. Redd withdrew his consent to petitioner's appointment and consented to the appointment of the cross-petitioner on the record.

By order dated September 17, 2026, the Court directed the filing of any further objections to the petition and the cross-petition on or before September 24, 2026, and the parties were directed to appear and testify in support of their respective objections at the continued hearing scheduled for September 28, 2026.

The cross-petitioner, and his siblings, Oliver McNeil, Jemel Ford, and Olivia McNeil (collectively, "objectants") filed objections to the petitioner serving as fiduciary, asserting that petitioner knowingly provided false information concerning the address of her domicile in her verified petition  ¹ , and again, while testifying under oath.

Additionally, objectants claim that petitioner misrepresented herself as the sole distributee in another estate proceeding, mistreated and physically abused the decedent during her lifetime, and is hostile towards the objectants. Further, the objections note that cross-petitioner and his prospective litigation counsel have already meaningfully participated in an investigation into the fire that caused the decedent's death.

Petitioner submitted a third set of amended objections, alleging, inter alia, that cross-petitioner was derelict in his duty to pay his child support obligations.

The hearing was held over a three (3) day period, ultimately concluding on September 28, 2026. The petitioner and cross-petitioner were the sole witnesses. On direct examination, petitioner testified regarding her love of the decedent, the despair she experienced upon learning of decedent's tragic demise in an apartment fire, and her effort to see that decedent's remains were properly put to rest. Petitioner described herself as decedent's primary caretaker with intimate and exclusive knowledge of the decedent's medical condition, and the individual most suited to serve as fiduciary.

Upon cross-examination, however, the Court observed a marked change in the petitioner's demeanor and manner of speech. Petitioner, previously mournful and soft-spoken, became loud, combative, and overly defensive, particularly so when counsel for the cross-petitioner called into question the veracity of petitioner's statements as to her domicile and petitioner's treatment of the decedent. Ultimately, the petitioner claimed the address used on her petition and oath and designation, which is that of a vacant and condemned property, is a "mailing" address. Petitioner did not wish to place her domicile address on the record.

On the second day of testimony, Mr. Redd's withdrawal of his support for the petitioner on the record drew petitioner's ire, and was met with a lengthy diatribe, with petitioner angrily and loudly testifying that Mr. Redd had abandoned the decedent during her lifetime, and was merely seeking a pay out.

On September 28, 2026, the continued cross-examination into petitioner's treatment of the decedent during her lifetime was again met with marked hostility, obstinance, and outbursts.

In contrast, upon examination, cross-petitioner squarely addressed his failure to initially include Mr. Redd as an interested party in his petition, testifying that he had not seen Mr. Redd since he was seventeen (17) years of age. Cross-petitioner credibly testified that he had no knowledge that the decedent had married Mr. Redd and only learned of same when petitioner filed a marriage certificate with the Court whereupon he amended his petition accordingly.

Additionally, cross-petitioner testified that while he loves the petitioner, she refused to communicate with him and his siblings concerning their mother's condition or her estate. Cross-petitioner testified that he has regular contact and open and cooperative relations with his other siblings. If appointed as administrator, cross-

petitioner demonstrated a willingness to actively participate as plaintiff in a lawsuit on the estate's behalf, and had already chosen a law firm he was confident would handle the matter.

On cross-examination, cross-petitioner was asked about the extent of his knowledge and contacts with the decedent, ostensibly to demonstrate a distant relationship and a lack of concern for the decedent during her lifetime.

On cross-examination, cross-petitioner testified that he assisted his mother when possible and when he was notified and informed. He further testified that he consistently paid child support, but fell behind when switching jobs and pursuing his HVAC certification. Cross-petitioner failed at the attempt to modify his support obligations in 2024 by defaulting at the appearance.

The balance of the cross-examination largely focused on cross-petitioner's contact, or lack thereof, with his daughter for whom the support order pertained, a subject matter that the court finds to be of little to no relevance to the issue presented.

In closing, petitioner asserts entitlement to her appointment because she was the sole caretaker until her mother passed, who tended to decedent's day-to-day needs, and "showed nothing but care and love" to decedent, whereas petitioner's siblings failed to assist. Counsel for petitioner asserts that petitioner's "emotional reactions" during the hearings should be excused. Petitioner asserts that cross-petitioner is unfit to serve because he did not have a relationship with his mother, does not see or care for his daughter, failed to pay child support, and deferred the disposition of decedent's remains to petitioner.

In closing, cross-petitioner asserts his appointment is in the estate's best interests as cross-petitioner has been honest and forthcoming in all respects and all of the remaining distributees agree that cross-petitioner's appointment would better serve the estate, particularly given petitioner's lack of transparency, unwillingness to communicate with her siblings, and lack of control and hostility towards the distributees.

At the outset, the Court recognizes that as children of the decedent, each party has an equal right to serve as administrator of the estate (SCPA 1001[1][e]). Pursuant to SCPA 707, letters may issue to a natural person or to a person authorized by law to be a fiduciary except, inter alia, "one who does not possess the qualifications required of a fiduciary by reason of substance abuse, dishonesty, improvidence, want of understanding, or who is otherwise unfit for the execution of the office."

The Court had more than ample opportunity over the course of three (3) days of testimony to hear the witnesses, observe their demeanor and non-verbal communications, and assess their credibility (see Thereon v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]).

Upon the papers submitted, the testimony of the parties, and after due deliberation, the Court finds that petitioner, Myasia Ford, is unfit to serve as fiduciary of the estate. Significantly, the petitioner's inclusion of a false domicile on her verified petition and oath and designation constitutes a material misrepresentation to the Court, and her evasive testimony upon being questioned regarding same evinces dishonesty and a lack of understanding of the duties of a fiduciary (SCPA 711[4], [6]; see also, e.g., Matter of Drimmer, 468 NYS2d 533 [2d Dept 1983]). Furthermore, petitioner's inability to maintain her composure in a courtroom setting renders her ill-suited to serve as the estate's representative in an emotionally charged lawsuit.

Although the cross-petitioner is not without flaws, the objections raised by the petitioner were either irrelevant or did not rise to the level of rendering cross-petitioner ineligible to serve (SCPA 707). Cross-petitioner credibly explained why he did not initially include Mr. Redd as an interested party in this proceeding as well as his inability to keep apace with his child support obligations. Importantly, and in contrast to petitioner, cross-petitioner maintained an appropriate level of decorum and demonstrated a calm demeanor while subject to cross-examination. Finally, all of the distributees with the exception of the petitioner have consented to his appointment.

Based on all of the foregoing, the Court in its discretion finds the cross-petitioner, Kadeem Ford, is fit to receive letters and it is in the best interest of the estate to appoint him as limited administrator (see Matter of Sheppard, 63 AD3d 1358 [3d Dept 2009]; Matter of Eisenstein, 158 AD2d 597 [2d Dept 1990]; Matter of De Hart, 8 Misc 2d 531 [Sur. Ct. Richmond County 1957]).

Accordingly, the petition of Myasia Ford is dismissed.

The objections and amended objections to the cross-petition of Kadeem Ford are denied, and the cross-petition is granted.

Limited letters of administration shall issue to Kadeem Ford for the purpose of commencing and prosecuting any causes of action that exist on behalf of decedent's estate.The cross-petitioner's counsel is directed to immediately submit a decree to the Court.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this decision and order to all the parties that have appeared in these proceedings.

Dated: September 30, 2026

SURROGATE

FOOTNOTES

1.   The residence set forth in the petition and the oath and designation is owned by another family member, is vacant, and has been condemned due to a fire that occurred several years ago.

Cassandra A. Johnson, S.