Surrogate's Court, Erie County

Decided on December 31, 2025

File No. 2020-2932/A

Acea M. Mosey, S.

[*1]

Decedent Joseph W. Strobele, Jr. [hereafter, decedent] died intestate on June 10, 2020, at sixty-two (62) years of age in Buffalo, New York. At the time of his death, decedent was divorced. An administration petition was filed on August 27, 2020, by Tara K. Horrigan [hereafter, Tara] seeking letters of administration. Tara's petition identified herself as a non-marital child and sole distributee of decedent. Tara was eligible to serve upon filing proof of paternity in compliance with EPTL 4-1.2(a)(2)(A). On September 1, 2020, letters of administration with limitations issued to Tara. The limitations on the letters required a kinship determination before distribution of the net estate.

Pending now before me is a petition for advice and direction requesting that a kinship hearing be held to determine decedent's heirs and close the class of distributees. Catherine E. Nagel, Esq., [hereafter, GAL Nagel] was appointed guardian ad litem for unknown heirs. During the first kinship hearing, a witness testified that decedent was the father of a second female child whose name and current whereabouts were unknown. Once jurisdiction was obtained over decedent's alleged unknown female child, Alexander Vilardo, Esq., [hereafter, GAL Vilardo] was appointed guardian ad litem to protect her interest in this estate.

Kinship hearings were held on July 20, 2023, March 26, 2024, and July 1, 2025. On consent of all parties, the hearings took place before a Court Attorney-Referee on a hear and report basis. All parties waived the filing of a written referee report and recommendation, permitting me to decide the issues based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented [*2]at the hearing (SCPA 506[6][c]).

The guardian ad litems have submitted their respective reports and recommendations which I have considered with the hearing testimony and the documentary evidence.

I now find and decide as follows:

(A)

Pursuant to EPTL 4-1.2, the right of non-marital children to inherit from their birth fathers depends on proof of paternity by one of four methods: (1) an order of filiation by a court of competent jurisdiction during the lifetime of the father; (2) an acknowledgment of paternity executed by the parents of the child pursuant to Public Health Law Section 4135-b and filed in the district in which the birth certificate is filed; (3) a signed instrument, acknowledging the paternity by the father in a manner required to record a deed; or (4) by clear and convincing evidence, which may include, but is not limited to, evidence derived from a genetic marker test, or evidence that the father openly and notoriously acknowledged the child as his own.

A claimant has the burden of proving kinship (see, e.g., Matter of Flavin, 15 Misc 3d 1104A [2007] and Matter of Morris, 277 AD 211 [1950]), and must establish that they are decedent's closest surviving blood relatives as defined in EPTL 4-1.1 (see, Matter of Dinzey, NYLJ, June 9, 2003, at 33, col.4). This burden is met by a preponderance of evidence (see, Matter of Paul, 2017, NY Misc LEXIS 674, 2017 NY Slip Op 30355U [dec. Feb. 17, 2017]; see also, Matter of Whelan, 93 AD2d 891 [1983]). For kinship to be established to the satisfaction of the Court, a claimant must make an evidentiary showing (1) how each is related to decedent, and (2) that no other persons of the same or nearer degree of relationship survived 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 18, col. 6).

The nature of the proof required in kinship proceedings is stringent and has become well-established over the years (2 Harris 6th, NY Estates: Probate Administration & Litigation, §27:7). "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 1104A [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, 235 [2013]). "[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 [Sur Ct, Bronx County 1946])" (Matter of Darienzo, NYLJ, July 23, 2010, at 36, col 5).

(B)

Decedent was born on XX/XX/1957, in Buffalo, New York, to Joseph W. Strobele, Sr. and Alice Dudas. Decedent was one of ten (10) siblings who were all raised in Buffalo. Decedent graduated from Baker Victory High School, and soon after graduation he enlisted in the Navy. Upon his discharge from the Navy, decedent was employed by the Buffalo Fire Department where he worked for the next thirty (30) years as a fireman until retirement.

Five (5) individuals testified at the hearings: (1) decedent's older sister, Susan Giambrone [hereafter, Susan]; (2) decedent's former romantic partner, Sheila Patterson [hereafter, Sheila]; (3) decedent's daughter, Tara; (4) decedent's former spouse, Barbara Strobele [hereafter, Barbara]; and (5) counsel for the estate Administrator, Natalia Marte, Esq. [hereafter, Marte].

At the hearing, documentary evidence was also presented and admitted into evidence. [*3]The testimony and the supporting documentary evidence permit me to make the following findings.

SPOUSE

Susan and decedent grew up and lived together in the family home with their parents and other siblings. Susan testified that even after she and decedent moved out of their childhood home, they remained in contact with one another and saw each other regularly at holidays and family celebrations.

Susan described the decedent as a "loner" and "private person" who kept to himself. While the decedent had several romantic partners, there were lengthy periods of time between these romantic partners where he did not seriously date or introduce anyone to his family.

Susan testified she was only aware of three (3) serious romantic partners: Sheila, Barbara, and Dawn. Susan testified that decedent and Sheila were never married, but they remained in a committed romantic relationship for "a while" before Sheila discovered she was pregnant. Sheila recalled that she and decedent dated "for about a year" in high school and then reunited once he returned to Western New York from his deployment in the Navy. Their rekindled romantic relationship continued from 1984 to 1986. During this time, decedent and Sheila had one child together, namely Tara.

Once Sheila and decedent ended their romantic relationship, it was "a while" before Barbara came into the picture. Susan testified:

"Q. So, was Barb someone that he had known or was someone that he met?

A. Think someone he met.

Q. They got married fairly quickly?

A. Well, yeah, yeah, cause we didn't even know about her, so all of a sudden he, you know, called dad and said he got married and we — dad was like — and then the next thing we knew he was going to get divorced."

Barbara testified that in 2001 she and the decedent first met as neighbors. The couple maintained a relationship for approximately two (2) years from 2001 to 2003, and they married each other on September 25, 2003.

Barbara also characterized decedent as a loner explaining, "Joe liked to go to the clubs a lot and Joe liked to gamble, okay, and he was on his own a lot. You know, if he wasn't with [Barbara], he was on his own, doing his regular things that he liked to do." Even though decedent was from a large family, Barbara testified that he was not particularly close with his parents or siblings stating he "was not involved with his family."

Throughout the course of their marriage, decedent battled with his addiction to alcohol and gambling. Barbara testified, "He didn't wanna settle down after he got married, so that's why we exited." Decedent and Barbara finalized their divorce in 2008.^FN1 After the divorce proceedings concluded, Barbara had no further contact with decedent. Neither Sheila nor Tara was aware of decedent's brief marriage to Barbara until after his passing.

Shortly after decedent's divorce from Barbara, decedent became sober and he "found [*4]God." Decedent maintained his sobriety for the next twelve (12) years until his death.

Susan testified that decedent's final romantic partner, Dawn, was with decedent "way later," but "prior to [decedent] getting sick [and] before he passed." Decedent dated Dawn when they were in their early to late sixties. Sheila testified that decedent and Dawn never married.

I find the testimony of Susan, Sheila, and Barbara to be credible and persuasive.

Based on the testimony and evidentiary proof before me, the decedent was married once during his lifetime which ended in divorce. I find that the decedent did not marry thereafter and that the spousal class is hereby closed.

CHILDREN

(i)

TARA

Tara was born on XX/XX/1985, in Buffalo, New York. Once Tara's mother Sheila and decedent ended their relationship, Sheila commenced proceedings in Erie County Family Court to have the decedent formally adjudicated as Tara's father so that child support could be paid for her benefit and maintenance.

Sheila and decedent co-parented Tara up until Tara was approximately three (3) years old at which time the decedent stopped physically seeing his daughter. While decedent's in-person contact with Tara ended, decedent continuously paid his child support obligations for Tara's benefit until she turned twenty-one (21) years old which was confirmed by both Sheila and Tara.

In addition, while Tara's contact with her father ended, her relationship with her paternal extended family members continued throughout her childhood. Tara would attend holiday and birthday celebrations with her paternal extended family until her paternal grandmother passed away in 1996. Tara does not have any specific memories of her father; however, she testified that she has many memories of spending holidays, birthdays, and other family celebrations with her father's extended family members. Tara explained her paternal grandmother, "She was kind of the matriarch of the family so when she died everyone kinda went their own way and everything just kinda fell apart, so to speak. I really didn't see them after that."

A copy of an Order of Filiation entered by the Erie County Family Court on September 23, 1986, which determined decedent was Tara's father was filed in this proceeding. I find that Tara's status as a distributee has been established.

(ii)

UNKNOWN DAUGHTER

Early in her testimony, Susan stated that she was aware of the possibility that her brother had had another child in addition to Tara.

"Q. And from your knowledge, Tara is Mr. Strobele's only child?

A. No.

Q. And how did you become aware of Mr. Strobele possibly having another child?

A. A conversation with him that when he was in Virginia he met a woman and they had — from what he told me, they had a daughter and when they broke up and he came back to New York he was sending money . . . [to] the young lady in Virginia, he was just sending money to. There was no court proceedings.

Q. Okay. And when did Mr. Strobele inform you about this?

A. I don't — I don't remember. It was after he came back to New York.

Q. Okay . . . Do you know the child's name?

A. No.

Q. Do you know the mother's name?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Strobele ever provide you with any documentation related to him having another child?

A. No.

Q. Did he ever show you a picture of this child?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever meet this child?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever ask to meet the child?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever had contact with this child?

A. No."

Susan testified that after decedent's passing, no legal documents, letters or photographs were discovered relating to this alleged additional daughter, nor were any financial records located indicating "voluntary payments" for support of that child. Susan testified she, "talked to all my siblings that are left and no one knows any more than what I just said" regarding the existence of this alleged additional child of decedent.

Sheila similarly testified that during their relationship, decedent once mentioned to her that he had another child. Sheila explained:

"Q. And through the course of your relationship with Mr. Strobele, did it ever come to your attention that Mr. Strobele had any other children other than Tara?

A. He did mention it once . . .

Q. Okay. And what did Mr. Strobele tell you exactly?

A. He just said that he had - - he had another child.

Q. Did he tell you the name of the child?

A. No.

Q. Did he tell you the name of the mother?

A. No.

Q. Did he tell you where this child was located?

A. No.

Q. Did he ever tell you how old the child was?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever meet this child?

A. No.

Q. Do you know the gender of said child?

A. I think it was a girl, but I'm not sure."

Tara testified that her father never mentioned having had any other children. Moreover, Tara was unaware of any other children until preparing for this kinship hearing:

"Q. Okay. And through the course of you know Mr. Strobele, did it ever come to your attention that Mr. Strobele had any other children?

A. Not until after he died, getting all of this together, I had heard that there was a possibility, but, no, I never had any knowledge.

Q. Okay. And who had you heard this possibility of another child -

A. I had had another attorney, Ben Cranston, who was in contact with an aunt of mine, Cherly Kane -

Q. Okay.

A. - and he brought it to my attention. Before that I was unaware.

Q. Okay. Thank you. And do you happen to know who informed Mr. Ben Cranston that there was allegedly another child?

A. I thought Cheryl had told him.

Q. And who is Cheryl?

A. Cheryl is Joseph Strobele's sister."

During decedent's relationship with Barbara, the couple never had any children together because Barbara was "not able to" nor did the couple ever adopt any children. Decedent rarely ever spoke with Barbara about his daughter Tara, and he never mentioned having had another possible child in Virginia. During their marriage, Barbara and decedent kept their finances entirely separate, and Barbara had no access to any of his accounts. During their relationship, Barbara testified that she was only aware of the monthly check that decedent would write for Tara's child support, but she saw no evidence of any other child support payments.

Marte testified regarding the additional steps that the estate took to investigate and possibly identify the additional child decedent believed he fathered while stationed in Virginia. These steps included obtaining the decedent's naval records and conducting a search of the Virginia Putative Father Registry. While the Putative Father Registry search reported decedent was not registered in Virginia, decedent's naval records revealed that decedent was stationed on a naval ship and was "in sea service" for over two of the three years he was enlisted with the armed forces.

Upon returning to land, decedent was stationed at a base in Louisiana for a short period of time before returning to a base in Virginia. Marte attempted to search the Louisiana Putative Father Registry, but their search process required that both the name of the biological father and the child be provided. As the name of decedent's alleged second child is unknown, Marte and her office were unable to obtain any search results from the Putative Father Registry in Louisiana.

After receiving the decedent's military records, Marte contacted over fifty (50) of the individuals listed in those documents, including decedent's recruiting officer and commanding officer. Not one of these individuals that Marte spoke with had any independent recollection of the decedent, his time in the armed forces, or his family.

Marte obtained a copy of decedent's life insurance beneficiary designation form with the City of Buffalo Fire Department which indicated that decedent left the proceeds of his life insurance to two (2) of his sisters, not to a spouse or child(ren). Copies of decedent's health insurance benefits forms were also filed in this proceeding to demonstrate that decedent was registered for a health insurance plan and that the only dependents ever listed were his wife, Barbara, and his daughter, Tara.

Marte made extensive efforts to locate friends of the decedent, but again she met dead ends. Marte was informed by Barbara that she and decedent "didn't really have many friends. They merely had acquaintances." Barbara informed Marte that any of individuals that she would have recommended be contacted were either dead or she had fallen out of touch with them. Marte attempted to locate coworkers, church parishioners, and other alcoholics anonymous members who may have known decedent, but she was unsuccessful in locating them as those [*5]individuals were either deceased or their contact information was no longer available.

Furthermore, decedent struggled throughout his life from various mental health conditions including depression. Shortly after decedent retired from the Buffalo Fire Department, he was hospitalized at BryLin Hospital in Buffalo, New York, for severe depression and suicidal ideation. It is clear that decedent was an incredibly isolated individual and even described himself as someone with "no hobbies, no friends, and . . . does not know what to do with himself." Over three hundred (300) pages of decedent's medical records from BryLin were filed in this proceeding wherein decedent confided to medical professionals about the details of his life. Decedent told his health care specialists about his naval service, his large immediate family, his journey to sobriety, and his daughter, Tara, who he acknowledged he was "not very close to."

While most of decedent's medical records have notations solely concerning his daughter, Tara, one record indicates that during one of decedent's art therapy sessions he confided to one of his counsellors, Balvinder Kang [hereafter, Kang], "that he harbors a lot of guilt about some past relationships and being estranged from two (2) of his children. He expressed feeling a lot of pain when he thinks about it."

Marte contacted BryLin hospital to attempt to speak with Kang and the other individuals who treated decedent during his stay there, but she was informed that none of these individuals remained employed by their organization.

Despite the extensive efforts to locate additional information about decedent's second daughter, none of the searches conducted were able to yield any biographical information which would allow for the identification of decedent's second child or that child's birth mother.

(C)

After the conclusion of the kinship hearing, GAL Nagel and GAL Vilardo submitted their Reports and Recommendations wherein both guardians stated that they are satisfied that the decedent was only ever married once during his lifetime, that this marriage ended in divorce, and that decedent died without a spouse. The GALs also recommended that the Court make a determination pursuant to SCPA 2225(b) that because diligent and exhaustive efforts were made from all available sources and because more than three years have elapsed since the death of the decedent, that no distributees exist other than Tara whose status was established in the record.

I find the proof sufficient to establish that decedent was married only once during his lifetime to Barbara and this marriage ended in divorce in 2008. There is no documentary evidence or testimony to suggest that between 2008 and decedent's passing in 2020 that he ever remarried; therefore, I find the spousal class is hereby closed.

While I find that Tara is decedent's daughter, I cannot conclude that Tara is decedent's sole distributee based on the totality of evidence before me.

I am mindful that, in an appropriate case, SCPA 2225(b) permits a Court to make a determination that there are no persons other than those before it entitled to share in decedent's estate after the parties have conducted a diligent and exhaustive search "from all available sources" to ascertain the existence of possible distributees. While I find that claimant's efforts were thorough, an inability to locate an individual is not akin to proving that that individual does not exist.

Here, the decedent confided in at least four (4) individuals that he fathered another daughter while stationed at a naval base in Virginia. Not only did decedent acknowledge the existence of this child to two (2) of his sisters, Cherly and Susan, he even elaborated and told [*6]Susan that he was voluntarily sending money to the child's family for her maintenance and support, despite there being no court proceedings concerning the paternity or support of that child.

In another instance, decedent again disclosed the existence of another child to his partner, Sheila, and she similarly had no follow-up information regarding the child's name, date of birth, or whereabouts. While nothing else is known about this child, other than that she is a biological female, decedent's lack of involvement in her childhood and contact with her in adulthood, is something that clearly weighed on him, based on his later disclosure to Kang while being treated at BryLin Hospital.

Even if the medical record from BryLin Hospital was mistranscribed by Kang, or decedent misspoke - due to his physical and mental condition at that time — it does not erase or invalidate the fact that decedent had mentioned the existence of this child on at least three (3) prior occasions to other individuals. It should also be noted that decedent was discharged from BryLin four (4) days after he made the statement to Kang about his two (2) children. Decedent's discharge notes state that he had "no delusions, hallucinations, or paranoia. Memory remote, recent and immediate intact. [Decedent] was able to give informed consent for medical care, procedure, placement and finances." While it is clear that decedent was suffering from a major depressive episode during his time in BryLin, at no point do his medical records suggest that decedent had lost his capacity.

Furthermore, each time decedent discussed "his children" the facts remained the same: decedent had one unknown daughter born in Virginia during his time stationed at a naval base and that after he was discharged from the armed forces he returned to Western New York, where he and Sheila, had their daughter Tara. At no point did any of the witnesses raise or allude to the possibility of the decedent having had any other children besides Tara and this unknown female child.

The fact that decedent's wife, Barbara, his daughter, Tara, other members of his family, or his coworkers were unaware of the possibility that he had fathered another daughter is not dispositive here. Each of the witnesses testified that decedent was an incredibly private individual who did not tend to share details about his personal life. The notion that if the unknown female child truly was decedent's daughter, he would have discussed her more with his family members, I similarly find unpersuasive.

Decedent's relationship with his family could be characterized as distant at best. For instance, Sheila testified that decedent's marriage to Barbara was sudden, unexpected and "brief," and that she did not believe they ever resided together. Whereas Barbara testified that she and decedent dated for approximately two (2) years before becoming engaged, that they resided together throughout their marriage, and that they were married for nearly five (5) years before getting divorced. Barbara testified that during their relationship, they "didn't really see the family often. It was very far and few between."

Similarly, despite being in a relationship with Barbara for nearly seven (7) years, Barbara testified that decedent spoke about his daughter Tara so little it was "like he never had a child."

Thus, the fact that decedent's family members were unable to locate any photographs, letters, or documents pertaining to his unknown female child is also unpersuasive here.

Accordingly, I find, from the totality of the testimony and evidentiary material before me, that decedent had two (2) children, Tara and an unknown female child, and that the class of issue is closed. Tara and decedent's unknown female child are each are entitled to fifty percent [*7][50%] of decedent's net estate. However, I direct that all costs, expenses, legal fees, and guardian ad litem fees associated with both the second kinship hearing (which took place on March 26, 2024) and the third kinship hearing (which took place on July 1, 2025) shall be deducted solely from the decedent's unknown female child's share.

In the event that Tara believes that she may be able to present additional competent evidence to either identify, disqualify, or establish that decedent's unknown female child predeceased the decedent without issue (pursuant to SCPA 2225(a)), a motion to reopen proof may be made on or before Friday, January 23, 2026 .

If no motion is made to reopen proof, then I direct that a petition for judicial settlement of the Administrator's Account shall be filed in this matter on or before Friday, February 6, 2026 , before any final distributions are made. A Guardian ad Litem will be appointed in that proceeding for decedent's unknown female child who will review the Account, the allocation of the kinship hearing expenses as I have directed herein, and the proposed distribution of the net estate. Any additional filing fees, legal fees, and/or guardian ad litem fees incurred throughout the course of the judicial settlement proceeding shall also be deducted solely from the decedent's unknown female child's share.

Finally, I find that the current fee application from GAL Nagel in the amount of $5,750.00 is fair and reasonable under all the circumstances of this case, and that the current fee application from GAL Vilardo in the amount of $6,000.00 is fair and reasonable under all the circumstances of this case. The fee requests have not been objected to by any of the parties, they are hereby approved, and they shall be paid within twenty (20) days of this Order.

This decision shall constitute the Order of this Court.

DATED: December 31, 2025

BUFFALO, NEW YORK

HON. ACEA M. MOSEY

Surrogate Judge