Surrogate's Court, Monroe County

Decided on May 29, 2026

File No. 2025-2765/A, B, C

Christopher S. Ciaccio, S.

[*1]

Sorting through the moving party's confusing and inartfully labeled filings, and applying a rule of liberality, it can confidently be stated that before the court is a motion, inter alia, to revoke letters of administration issued to Andrew Kahan, the brother of the decedent Ilyce Siegel, on the ground that the decedent was married at the time of her passing to the movant Brad E. Wasserman. Wasserman was never served with the Petition; thus, he argues, personal jurisdiction over a necessary party is lacking.

Wasserman has also petitioned for letters of administration. As husband of the decedent, so he claims, he has priority for letters.

The appointed administrator, Andrew Kahan, denies that the decedent and Wasserman were married.

The simple issue then is whether Wasserman has established entitlement to a determination, at this stage of the proceedings, that he was married to the decedent at the time of her death.

Background

The following facts are not disputed.

Decedent died on August 27, 2025. She left no Last Will and Testament. She had been living at 60 Avalon Drive, in the Town of Brighton, New York, with Brad Wasserman.

On October 23, 2025, Andrew Kahan, the decedent's brother, petitioned for limited letters of administration. The petition states that the decedent was not married, and that she was survived by two siblings, Andrew and David Kahan. The death certificate states that she was a widow, and that informant was Brad Wasserman.

Also on October 23, 2026, Andrew brought an Order To Show Cause enjoining the "Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York" ("TRS") from disbursing any funds that had accumulated in the decedent's accounts.^FN1 One account is a Tax Deferred Annuity ("TDA") with a benefit amount of $575,913.00. The other is a Qualified Pension Plan ("QPP") with a death benefit amount of $174,678.00 and a "fractional benefit amount" of $3612.00. The QPP has a continuing lifetime payment amount of $3630.00 per month.

As alleged in counsel's affirmation in support of the Order To Show Cause, "BRAD E. WASSERMAN, the boyfriend of Decedent, manipulated the beneficiary designation of Decedent's TRS account to his benefit" shortly before the decedent's passing and during the time when she was dying from Stage 4 cancer. As confirmed by correspondence from TRS sent two months before the decedent died, Wasserman had become a 90% beneficiary and the decedent's nephews, Dylan Kahan and Jacob Kahan, were each made 5% beneficiaries. Before the most recent change of the beneficiary designations, Dylan and Jacob had each been 50% beneficiaries.

The court signed the Order To Show Cause on October 28, 2025, enjoining TRS from distributing any of the funds. TRS did not oppose and has agreed not to distribute any funds until further notice from the Court.

The court also issued a decree on October 28, 2025, granting full letters of administration to Andrew Kahan.

Frustrated by attempts to learn from Wasserman the extent of the decedent's assets, including personal property that the decedent may have left behind at 60 Avalon Drive, Andrew filed a discovery proceeding pursuant to SCPA §2103, seeking information regarding:

"a. All cash, bank accounts, securities, financial or brokerage accounts, life insurance policies and all other property, tangible or intangible in which Ilyce Siegel a/k/a Ilyce Wasserman had an interest. This includes both estate and non-estate assets."

In response to the discovery proceeding, Wasserman filed on March 10, 2026, a verified "Answer And Motion To Dismiss The Pending Petition Pursuant To SCPA § 2103," in which he states that he was married to the decedent in a "formal Jewish religious ceremony." He references as an attached exhibit the Affirmation of one Rabbi Mendy Hecht, who affirms that he officiated at the ceremony, and that a "Ketubah" (a traditional Jewish marriage contract) was signed in his presence by "two witnesses."

Wasserman also filed a Petition for letters of administration, and as stated above, claiming to have been married to the decedent when she died, and that he has priority for letters.

The verified "Answer" includes a "Statement of Material Facts," followed by another procedural irregularity, "Objections in Point of Law," a section appropriately entitled "Answer" which includes admissions and denials, and a "Conclusion," which cites case law. The "Wherefore" clause requests inter alia dismissal of the discovery proceeding and the grant of Wasserman's application for letters of administration.

Separately from the "Answer," Wasserman filed a "Memorandum of Law In Support Of Petition For Administration, Motion To Vacate Decree, And Motion To Dismiss The Petition Pursuant To SCPA § 2103."^FN2

He also filed in support an unsigned copy of what is represented to be the "Ketubah," the Jewish marriage contract, in Hebrew. No translation accompanies the document, in violation of CPLR Rule 2101(b).

Wasserman subsequently filed a "Notice of Motion," with no attached exhibits or supporting papers, requesting "an order pursuant to SCPA § 1001, SCPA §2103, CPLR § 3211(no subdivisions) , and CPLR § 3212" for the same relief sought in the verified Answer.

Analysis

Treating the motion to revoke the previously issued letters as one for lack of personal jurisdiction and applying the analytical framework of a motion for summary judgment (see e.g. Matter of Estate of Maloy, 75 Misc 3d 390, 395-396 [Sur Ct Monroe Cnty 2022]), the motion is denied without prejudice to be renewed following discovery.

It is the law in New York that no special form of marriage ceremony is required; all that is necessary is that the parties solemnly declare, in the presence of the officiant and at least one other witness, that they take each other as husband and wife.

Domestic Relations Law §12 states "[n]o particular form or ceremony is required when a marriage is solemnized as herein provided by a clergyman or magistrate, but the parties must solemnly declare in the presence of a clergyman or magistrate and the attending witness or witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife. In every case, at least one witness beside the clergyman or magistrate must be present at the ceremony."

See In re Farraj, 72 AD3d 1082, 1083 [2d Dept 2010]; Yusupov v Baraev, 197 AD3d 538, 539 [2d Dept 2021]; see also L.F. v M.A., 83 Misc 3d 1237(A) [Sup Ct NY County 2024]; Ponorovskaya v Stecklow, 45 Misc 3d 597, 617 [Sup Ct NY Cnty 2014]; Persad v. Balram, 187 Misc 2d 711 (Sup. Ct. Queens County 2001).

Here, Wasserman's submissions fail to establish as a matter of law that he was married to the decedent at the time of her death, and so he is not entitled to a decree that the letters of administration issued to Andrew Kahan should be revoked because personal jurisdiction over Wasserman was never obtained.

The Rabbi calls what he performed a "marriage," and Wasserman says he was married, but neither state that the husband and wife professed vows. The signed Ketubah would be sufficient to establish a marriage (see Yusupov v. Baraev, 197 AD3d 538, 539 [2d Dept 2021]), but it was not produced. Rather, counsel submitted an unsigned Ketubah, in Hebrew, instead of the signed original, which to the court raises on its face a cloud of uncertainty as to whether the marriage really took place. Untranslated and unsigned, the document is without any legal effect and in any event violates the "best evidence" rule (see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of NY, 84 NY2d 639, 643 [1994]: "The best evidence rule requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and sought to be proven;" Foot v Bentley, 44 NY 166, 171 [1870]: "(B)est evidence rule simply requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and sought to be proven"]).

The Rabbi says two witnesses signed it. Who are they? He does not say. What did they observe? That also is unsaid. The Rabbi also attached to his Affirmation what he says is a photograph of the wedding ceremony. By itself, without stating that the couple professed vows, the photograph is meaningless. He does not even state who is in the picture - how does the court determine that the woman's face is that of the decedent?

Wasserman asserts that the designations on the beneficiary forms list him as "spouse." That too is meaningless. This court encounters many examples every year of people claiming to be married who are not legally married under New York law. Even so, the forms also list Wasserman as "other" and "domestic partner."

Wasserman says the deed to the property at 60 Avalon Drive in Brighton proves he and the decedent were married because it names the decedent and Wasserman as "husband and wife." Those words are hand-written and inserted into a blank space on the deed. The designation has no legal effect as far as proving that a marriage existed between the decedent and Wasserman. Nothing about the Deed establishes that the decedent was even present and [*2]knew that she was being designated as Wasserman's wife when the Deed was executed. On its face the Deed raises a suspicion that it is not authentic. Even if it is authentic, two people holding themselves out to be married is not proof of marriage.

It bears emphasizing that the legality of a marriage in the absence of an executed marriage certificate is established only by credible evidence that the spouses exchanged vows and that the ceremony was officiated by a religious cleric or a civil magistrate and witnessed by at least one person. That two people hold themselves out as being married is of zero weight in determining whether the couple is legally married.

Even if Wasserman's submissions established an entitlement to judgment, the appointed administrator Andrew Kahan has produced "evidentiary proof in admissible form, sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of facts which require a trial ." (Matter of Estate of Maloy, 75 Misc 3d at 396, citing Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

The death certificate states that the decedent was widowed at the time of her death. The informant was Brad E. Wasserman and is therefore competent evidence (see In re Opperman's Estate, 115 NYS2d 503, 506 [Sur Ct 1952]). The collateral evidence besides the fact of death can be considered by the court (Will of Esther T., 86 Misc 2d 452, 459 [Sur Ct Nassau Cnty 1976] citing to NY Public Health Law §4103; Matter of Estate of Whitaker, 120 Misc 2d 1021, 1022 [Sur Ct 1983]).

Andrew affirmatively states that his sister was not married. Ideally, he should have responded to the allegation that he was not present at the wedding, let alone state the basis for his belief that she was not married, but as slim as his opposition is, it is sufficient to defeat the motion to revoke the letters. The court deems his petition for letters to have been submitted in "good faith" based on the representation in the death certificate and his own belief (see SCPA § 704; Matter of In re Bonora, 123 AD3d 699, 701[2d Dept 2014]).

Andrew also requests attorney fees and sanctions, characterizing Wasserman's submissions as frivolous. That motion is denied without prejudice to renew.

Wasserman also moves to dismiss the discovery proceeding on the ground that it is a dispute between living parties, i.e., that the fight over the beneficiary designations is between Wasserman on one hand and Dylan and Jacob Kahan on the other. That motion is denied. First, the discovery petition is concerned with any property that might conceivably by deemed an estate asset and includes not only the TRs account funds, but also personal property owned by the decedent. Second, it is not clear that the Estate would not benefit if certain of the beneficiary designations were deemed to be invalid. Thus, for the time being the matter involving the TRS funds stays in this court.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to revoke the letters of administration issued to Andrew Kahan for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied;

The motion to dismiss the discovery proceeding is denied.

The motion to grant letters of administration to Brad E. Wasserman is denied.

The motion to direct TRS to distribute the funds associated with the decedent's retirement accounts to Brad Wasserman is denied.

All motions are denied without prejudice.

Counsel for Andrew Kahan shall submit an Order.

Dated: May 29, 2026

Rochester, New York 14534

Christopher S. Ciaccio

Surrogate, Monroe County