Matter of Ridge

Surrogate's Court, Erie County

Decided on March 31, 2026

File No. 2023-4783/C

Acea M. Mosey, S.

Marie Ridge [hereafter, decedent] died on June 7, 2023, at Kenmore Mercy Hospital, at the age of 79. She was survived by her two children, Sherry Regian [hereafter, Sherry] and Charles Ridge [hereafter, Charles]. Sherry and Charles filed a petition to probate decedent's Last Will and Testament, dated October 11, 2022; and, on March 18, 2024, letters testamentary were issued Sherry and Charles as co-executors.FN1 The Will leaves everything to Sherry and Charles equally.

Nearly nine (9) months later, on December 11, 2024, HMS, Inc., on behalf of New York State Department of Health and Erie County Department of Social Services [collectively, the Claimant], filed a Verified Claim [hereafter, the Claim] in this estate. Claimant sought $43,159.94 for medical assistance to decedent allegedly paid by the New York State Medicaid Program.

Sherry filed a petition to determine "the validity, and enforceability" of the Claim on June 24, 2025. The petition also seeks a determination rejecting the Claim "as untimely".

Jurisdiction was obtained over all necessary parties, and a hearing was set down to determine the validity of the Claim. That hearing was held on December 15, 2025, before a Court Attorney on a hear and report basis. Counsel consented to this procedure, and waived the filing of a written referee report, also consenting that I might determine the issues based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the hearing (SCPA 506[6][c]). Claimant did not appear at either the citation return date or at the hearing, nor did Claimant file any [*2]responding papers.

I have considered the hearing testimony and documentary evidence, and I now find and decide as follows.

(I)

In SCPA 1809 proceedings, a Court has a broad mandate in determining the validity of a claim. As this Court noted in Matter of Evans, 86 Misc 3d 1238(A)[2025]:

"In SCPA 1809 proceedings, this Court has pointed out that it 'has a broad mandate in determining the validity of a claim [and resolution] "must take into consideration all of the facts and surrounding circumstance[s], such as the relationship of the parties and the nature of the claim presented" ' (Matter of DeOca, 75 Misc 3d 449, 451, 167 N.Y.S.3d 342 [2002], quoting Matter of Truitt, 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 4818). Among other requirements, a fiduciary's petition must assert the invalidity of a claim and it must request that the claimant show cause why the claim should not be disallowed. Ultimately, the claimant has the burden of proving the claim by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Parisi, 2024 NYLJ LEXIS 2526, citing Matter of Fiebranz v. McMormick, 43 AD2d 794, 795, 350 N.Y.S.2d 247 [1973], aff'd 35 NY2d 888, 324 N.E.2d 359, 364 N.Y.S.2d 890 [1974])."

Generally, if a claim is not presented within seven months from issuance of letters, a fiduciary will not be chargeable for assets paid in good faith to satisfy lawful claims or for assets distributed to decedent's legatees or distributees before the claim was presented (SCPA 1802). Claims which have not been allowed within 90 days of being presented are deemed to have been rejected (SCPA 1806). Claims against the estate must be in writing, except for claims of the United States and State of New York (SCPA 1803).

(II)

Sherry, the only witness to testify at the hearing, testified that the Claim was received nearly nine months after letters testamentary had been issued. She testified that the estate paid all legitimate claims, including medical bills, that came through the mail to decedent's house, but that Claimant did not send a bill or file the Claim within seven months of her appointment as fiduciary. No assets remained in the estate after the seven-month point, as the net estate was distributed to Sherry and Charles.

When Sherry received the Medicaid claim in December, 2024, she "actually tried contacting them — to find out what it was for". Sherry attempted to reach the agency that sent her the bill "[t]hrough the phone numbers that were there":

"It just kept ringing. Nobody ever answered and we looked them up and everything like that and it was just — it bounced from one agency to another one within a couple of months."

Despite all Sherry's efforts to discover what underpinned the Claim, "[t]hey were never able to give us any information on what it was for." Together, both Sherry and her attorney tried unsuccessfully for "[a]t least a year" to discover what the Claim was for.

Finally, Sherry and her attorney decided to bring the instant proceeding "to contest the legality of this claim".

(III)

The record before me reveals that, on April 11, 2025, Sherry's attorney "sent a [FAX] to HMS requesting . . . documentation or an accounting to substantiate the amount set forth in the [*3]Claim." No response to that request was ever received.

After Sherry filed her verified petition to determine "the validity and enforceability of the Claim", a citation was served upon Claimant [New York State Department of Health, HMS Recovery, Inc., and Erie County Dept. of Social Services]. On the return date, there was no appearance by or for Claimant, and this Court set the matter down for an evidentiary hearing. Sherry's attorney served a notice of hearing, dated November 21, 2025, upon "HMS, Inc., NYS Dept. of Health, and Erie County Dept. of Social Services", filing proof of service thereafter. See Appendix A.

There was no appearance at the December 15, 2025 evidentiary hearing either by or for HMS, Inc., NYS Dept. of Health or the Erie County Dept. of Social Services.

Even though "a fiduciary is charged with knowledge of some claims, such as funeral expenses, hospital and doctor bills, Medicaid or other government liens, and judgments against the decedent" (Turano and Radigan, New York Estate Administration, § 5.03[a], at 222 [2026 ed.] [emphasis added]), a fiduciary is entitled to question the basis for such a billing and seek a determination as to its validity. Here, despite all the outreach efforts by Sherry and her attorney to deal responsibly with the Claim, those efforts were all in vain as Claimant remained entirely unresponsive.

Likewise, Claimant defaulted in responding to the citation issued in this SCPA 1809 proceeding, and also defaulted in appearing at the evidentiary hearing (although timely notice of that hearing was properly given to Claimant).

I find that Sherry has taken all reasonable steps to determine the underlying nature of the Claim and whether it is valid (in whole or in part). Simply put, Claimant has been silent throughout.

I do not believe that the law requires a fiduciary to accept a Claim presented to her and simply pay it without any explanation or supporting documentation. Having made every reasonable effort to find out what the Claim encompassed, and having been met with total unresponsiveness throughout, I find that Sherry is entitled to a determination that the Claim is not valid.

Accordingly, the Claim interposed against this estate shall be, and it hereby is, dismissed.

This decision shall constitute the Order and Decree of this Cout and no other further order or decree shall be required.

DATED: March 31, 2026

BUFFALO, NEW YORK

HON. ACEA M. MOSEY

Erie County Surrogate Judge