In this motion the Public Administrator seeks the entry of an order and decree granting the following relief: (1) revoking the letters of administrator that previously issued to the respondent, one of the decedent's sons; (2) granting letters of administration d.b.n. to the Public Administrator; (3) invalidating deeds dated May 19, 2006 and February 27, 2007 purporting to transfer multi-family real property located in Brooklyn (realty); (4) restraining the respondent from further encumbering or transferring the realty; and, (5) directing the respondent, individually and as administrator, to account for all assets of the estate received by him in either capacity. On the return date of the motion, the respondent appeared and, notwithstanding that he was afforded a period of time to submit opposition to the motion, he failed to do so.

The decedent died on December 6, 2005, survived by the respondent administrator and five other children, three of whom were infants at the time of his death. The matter was brought to the attention of the Public Administrator by the mother of two of the infants. The documents submitted in support of the motion reveal that the decedent's mother, Philomena Bates (Bates), transferred the realty to the decedent by quitclaim deed dated January 8, 1997 and recorded on January 9, 1997. Thereafter, the respondent managed to record a deed dated May 19, 2006, transferring the realty from Bates to himself notwithstanding that Bates had died on November 19, 1997, more than 10 years prior to the date of the purported conveyance. This purported deed was recorded on May 22, 2006 even though it appears to be signed only by the respondent and not by either Bates or another on her behalf as grantor. The Commissioner of the New York City Department of Finance became aware of the possibility of fraud with respect to the May 19, 2006 deed, and an Assistant [*2]Commissioner of the New York City Department of Finance, in an affidavit dated September 5, 2006, noted that the "grantor did not sign the deed as she transferred the property to . . . (the decedent) in January, 1997 and she died in November, 1997." This affidavit concludes: "until such time as the purported fraudulent conveyance is nullified, this affidavit shall serve as notice to the public of the possible defects in chain of title." Nonetheless, thereafter on February 26, 2007, the respondent transferred the realty to MPE Investors, Inc. (MPE), an entity that he apparently controlled, as he signed the appropriate tax forms on behalf of the entity and listed identical addresses for himself and that entity.

Here, although the respondent initially filed conclusory objections to the branch of the motion seeking to revoke his letters of administration, he failed to avail himself of the opportunity to present any facts in opposition to the evidence the movant presented herein establishing that he unlawfully and fraudulently acquired the realty. Thus, the uncontroverted proof clearly establishes that the May 19, 2006 deed purportedly conveying the property to the respondent was a fraudulent conveyance which should be nullified. It also appears that the February 26, 2007 deed, purporting to transfer the realty from the respondent to MPE was a fraudulent and ineffective attempt to obscure the defect in the May 19, 2006 deed that transferred the property to the respondent. In any event, under the facts of this case, it is clear that MPE could receive no better title than its grantor (see Real Property Law § 245). Accordingly, the branches of the motion seeking to invalidate the deeds dated May 19, 2006 and February 26, 2007, and the branch of the motion requesting that the respondent be permanently enjoined from transferring or encumbering the realty, are granted.

Here, the respondent's dishonesty, demonstrated by the fraudulent conveyances of the realty, warrants the revocation of the letters of administration that issued to him (see SCPA 711 [8]) as there is a reasonable concern that the funds of the estate would not be safe in his hands (see Matter of Gottlieb, 75 AD3d 99 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 706 [2011]). Moreover, in the absence of any opposition, the branch of the application seeking the issuance of letters of administration d.b.n. to the Public Administrator is also granted .

The respondent also failed to present any reason why he should not account for all of the assets of the decedent that he took control of either individually or as the administrator of the estate. Accordingly, the order and decree to be settled hereon shall direct the respondent to render and seek the judicial settlement of his account within 60 days of the personal service of said order and decree upon him.

Settle order and decree upon the respondent and MPE.

SURROGATE