Complaint,Petition: Robert S. Stone Jr. v. Victoria Anne Jordan

On August 26, 2022 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Robert S. Stone Jr., and Victoria Anne Jordan, for Real Property - Other (Enjoin sale) in the District Court of Suffolk County.

Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
ROBERT S. STONE JR.

Petitioner,

-against
PETITION/AFFIRMATION

Index No. __________
Surrogate’s Ct. File No. 2021-4487

(Case of Concurrent Jurisdiction
with Suffolk County Supreme Court)
VICTORIA ANNE JORDAN,

Respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------X

ROBERT S. STONE JR., ESQ., an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, affirms
the following under penalty of perjury:

INTRODUCTION

1. That this Petition shall also serve as the Affirmation in Support of your Petitioner’s Order
to Show Cause.

2. That your petitioner ROBERT S. STONE JR. is domiciled at 4 Blackwell Lane, Stony
Brook, County of Suffolk, State of New York, and is a person interested in the estate of
SUZANNE L. STONE, decedent; namely the son, attorney-draftsman, executor, and sole
residuary beneficiary of decedent’s Last Will and Testament dated and executed on June
16, 2013 (a scan of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”).

3. That SUZANNE L. STONE (hereinafter “my mother”) died testate on December 14,
2016, leaving your Petitioner—as the sole residuary beneficiary of her Will—her real
property at 4 Blackwell Lane, Stony Brook, NY.

4. That Respondent, VICTORIA ANNE JORDAN, (hereinafter: “my sister”) had known
since the funeral in December of 2016 that our mother named your Petitioner the executor
and sole residuary beneficiary of her Last Will and Testament (See Exhibit “A”).

1 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

5. For more than five years, your Petitioner had no need to open a probate proceeding
because Respondent was respecting our mother’s wishes set forth in her Will.

6. That in October of 2021, Respondent surreptitiously—as in completely without my
knowledge—applied for Letters of Administration for the Estate of SUZANNE L.
STONE (see Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court File No. 2021-4487)

7. On her Petition for Letters of Administration, (a copy of which is annexed hereto as
Exhibit “B”), Respondent made the following representation to the Court:

4. A diligent search and inquiry, including a search of any safe
deposit box has been made for a will of the decedent and none has
been found. Petitioner has been unable to obtain any information
concerning any will of the decedent and therefore alleges, upon
information and belief, that the decedent died without leaving any
last will.

8. In making the foregoing representation, Respondent VICTORIA ANNE JORDAN
knowingly concealed from the Surrogate’s Court her knowledge of our mother’s Last Will
& Testament (see Exhibit “A”) to procure Letters of Administration.

9. Adding insult to injury, the Surrogate’s Court—per the orders of the Chief Administrative
Judge and the Administrative Judge of Suffolk County—denied your Petitioner proper
service of Respondent’s Application for Letters of Administration. As a result, your
Petitioner did not learn of Respondent obtaining Letters of Administration until mid-July
2022.

10. On August 18, 2022, a man named Adam Scott of A&E REALTY SOLUTIONS knocked
on my door. He told me he was checking to see if the premises was occupied, since “his
boss” was suspicious as to why the seller (My Sister) was offering it so far below market
rate. When I told him that my sister had no moral or legal right to sell my home because
my mother left the house to me in her will, he left me his card and apologized for bothering
me, but the only reason he had to knock was to find out why the seller (my sister) was
trying to dump it so quickly for an all-cash deal.

11. For reasons set forth below, your Petitioner has reason to believe Respondent’s sudden
zeal to administer my mother’s estate stems from her theft and/or destruction of my
mother’s Will.

12. Thus, since your Petitioner has zero Estate Litigation experience, and since the Supreme
Court shares concurrent jurisdiction with the Surrogate’s Court, and since time is of the
essence, and since the Surrogate’s Court is effectively conflicted from hearing my personal
jurisdiction arguments, my best option for stopping my sister from selling my home before
I can get a copy of my mother’s will admitted to probate is to move this Court for a TRO.

2 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

13. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION: In Matter of Tabler, 55 A.D.2d 207, 210 (N.Y. App.
Div. 1976), the Third Department clarified the issue of concurrent jurisdiction between the
Supreme Court and Surrogate’s court thusly:
It is true that the Supreme Court and Surrogate's Court have
concurrent jurisdiction in matters involving decedents' estates (NY
Const, art VI, §§ 7, 12). Since the Supreme Court is a court of
general jurisdiction, rather than specialized, and has the power to
render declaratory judgments, it might be argued that where doubt
is raised as to whether the Surrogate's Court may handle all matters
that may come before it in a given case, the Supreme Court should
be allowed to rule. […] Where … the Surrogate's Court has already
acted and where all the relief requested may be obtained in the
Surrogate's Court, the Supreme Court ordinarily refrains from
exercising its concurrent jurisdiction and the court first assuming
jurisdiction should retain it to the exclusion of the other (Dunham v
Dunham, 40 A.D.2d 912; Matter of Moody, 6 A.D.2d 861).
(Emphasis added.)

14. As will be shown, while the Surrogate’s Court may have “already acted,” it had no
jurisdiction to issue Letters of Administration to VICTORIA ANNE JORDAN for the
ESTATE OF SUZANNE L. STONE—rendering them “void and unavailable for any
purpose,” Eastwood v. Premis, 9 A.D.2d 553, 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)—because your
Petitioner was never properly served.

15. Accordingly, your Petitioner seeks a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining Respondent
VICTORIA ANNE JORDAN, as Administrator for the ESTATE OF SUZANNE L.
STONE, from selling Petitioner’s home at 4 Blackwell Lane, Stony Brook, NY based on
the following demonstration as to why there’s a strong “probability of success, danger of
irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and [the] balance of equities [lie] in
[your Petitioner’s] favor.” (See Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc. (2005) 4
N.Y.3d 839, 840)

BACKGROUND
16. Sometime in 2021, after about five years of silence regarding our mother’s estate, my sister
began harassing me to sell the house and live on her property in Texas. Every time I
declined, I reexplained to her that our mother left me the house in her Will because of all
I sacrificed ensuring our father lived out his final days at home instead of a nursing facility.

17. Sometime in January of 2022, I discovered an envelope in my mailbox containing my
sister’s petition for Letters of Administration. Believing our mother’s will was still in the
unlocked strongbox it was kept in since execution, I ignored said ‘mailbox surprise’
entirely; while thinking the idea of a court obtaining personal jurisdiction via regular/non-
registered mail, without so much as a CPLR 312-a “acknowledgment of receipt,” is
obscene.

3 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

18. In late April of 2022, my sister’s attorney, David J. Lorber Esq., sent me correspondence
regarding my sister’s attempt to get Letters of Administration for my mother’s estate.
After speaking with one of his associates—and there being no valid attempts at
personal service and no hint that letters were already issued—I emailed Attorney
Lorber a color Pdf scan of my mother’s will I had made on 12/29/2017. (See Exhibit
“A”) Thus, I felt no need to disturb the original document that I believed was still in the
strongbox.

19. In the cover letter (annexed hereto as Exhibit “C”), I provided Attorney Lorber with a
brief explanation as to why my mother named me the executor and sole beneficiary
thusly:

In early 2006, my father was diagnosed with vascular dementia.
At the time, my sister had just gotten married and was starting a
family. Since my mother had a stroke in the early 1990’s, she was
partially paralyzed on her left side and therefore physically
incapable of taking care of him alone. Rather than pensioning my
parents off to a nursing home, I put off my life and career to care
for them.

As my father descended into madness, the never-ending scenes of
changing his diapers while he kicked and screamed like a child for
his “mommy” drove me to drown out self-awareness with
television and food. No future, no past; just a perpetually urgent
need to erase myself from the dementia-ridden present. The
weight gain, diabetes, and congestive heart failure from sitting
vigil at his bedside for years nearly killed me.

After my father died, I took care of my mother until she too passed
away. Since she always felt guilty about me putting my life on
hold to care for her and my father, she left me the house in her
will. I didn’t probate it because I had no legal need to.

20. Three months later, by letter dated July 14, 2022, Respondent’s Attorney, DAVID J.
LORBER, ESQ., sent me a copy of a proposed contract of sale of my home—citing no
purchaser but citing Respondent as “Administrator of the Estate of SUZANNE L.
STONE” as seller. This was the first I’d learned that Letters of Administration were
issued to my sister.

21. When your Petitioner went to retrieve the original executed copy of said Last Will and
Testament from the unlocked strongbox in which it was kept since its execution—save
for the time I scanned it to pdf—I noticed it was missing.

22. A few weeks later, after learning from Gina in the Miscellaneous department how much
easier things would be if I located the original Will, I searched the house for it again.

4 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

23. After checking the filing cabinets where I kept my mother’s journals, I checked the
Living Room China closet where I kept other mementos of her—including the plastic
sandwich bag the hospital grief counsellor gave me to put my mother’s rings in the night
she died. That was when I realized the bag—containing my mother’s wedding ring and
her solid gold knotted rope ring that my sister was especially fond of—was gone.
Nothing else was missing, not even my father’s gold cuff links.

24. The specificity of items missing made it obvious my sister took them; but the question
was how. Then I recalled something strange that happened about a year prior. I had let
the dogs follow me out the front door—as I always do when I’m getting packages from
the car. I had gone back inside while the dogs were still outside when I got a call from
my sister asking me if I knew that the dogs were “loose” outside the front of the house.
Since she’s in Texas, I asked her how she knew that, and she said her friend “Artie
happened to be driving by the house while talking to her on the phone.” I played along
with her fairytale; quietly suspecting she had been spying on me for some reason. In
retrospect, however, I now think she directed her friend Artie via video phone to take the
Will from the unlocked strong box and the rings from the China closet. Nothing else
could possibly account for her sudden and surreptitious moves to sell my home out from
under me.
25. Thus, on August 22, 2022, your Petitioner filed papers requesting the Surrogate’s Court to
compel Respondent to produce my mother’s Will (See Exhibit “D”). Those papers have
yet to be reviewed, accepted, and submitted to the Surrogate—another reason for the
concurrent jurisdiction route.

The Likelihood of The Copy of Decedent’s Will
Being Accepted to Probate is Strong

26. Under SCPA § 1407, a lost or destroyed will can be admitted to probate only if:

1. It is established that the will has not been revoked, and
2. Execution of the will is proved in the manner required for
the probate of an existing will, and
3. All of the provisions of the will are clearly and distinctly
proved by each of at least two credible witnesses or by a copy or
draft of the will proved to be true and complete.

The Will Existed Unrevoked at The Date of Testator’s Death

27. When my mother died on December 14, 2016, her Last Will and Testament existed
unrevoked in the strongbox where it was kept since she executed it. Since I was already
living in the house and I was the sole beneficiary, I had no need to probate it until now.

28. On December 29, 2017, a year after decedent’s death, your Petitioner made a color scan
pdf copy of the decedent’s Last Will & Testament. Forensic evidence of the pdf files

5 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

generated for each individual page of the original document establishes its existence after
death of decedent.

Execution of the will is proved in the manner required for the probate of an existing will.

29. Since the undersigned is the attorney who drafted the Will, the inference that all statutory
formalities were met are subject to a showing of no undue influence. NYSBA Ethics
Opinion #610- 6/20/90 (2-90) provides in pertinent part:

Lawyer-Draftsman as Beneficiary
… In New York, upon probate, surrogates must investigate any
bequest to the attorney who drafted the will. The attorney must
submit an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances of the
gift. If the surrogate is not satisfied with the explanation, a hearing
is held to determine whether the attorney's bequest was the result of
undue influence. See NY. SCPA § 1408(1) … In re Will of Putnam,
257 NY. 140 (1931) …
Lawyer-Draftsman as Beneficiary and Executor
Although no per se rule prohibits an attorney from either receiving
a gift or serving as executor under a will the lawyer has drafted, only
very unusual circumstances could justify an attorney preparing a
will naming the lawyer as both executor and as a residuary
beneficiary. …
DR 5-101(A) permits employment even where the personal or
financial interests of the lawyer may impair his independent
professional judgment, however, provided that the client consents
after full disclosure. In order for client consent to be effective under
DR 5-101(A), it must be obvious that, despite the conflict, the
lawyer can adequately represent the interests of the client in the
situation. See N.Y. State 595 (1988); N.Y. State 516 (1980). Where
a lawyer proposes to serve the multiple roles of draftsman, executor
and beneficiary, the "obviousness" test can be met only in limited
circumstances. Such circumstances might exist, for example,
where there is a close familial relationship between lawyer and
testator. 1

46. A testator’s statements with respect to her testamentary intentions, made prior to
execution of the will, are admissible to show that the will has carried out those intentions
and thus to rebut an inference of undue influence. 39 NY JUR. 2d, Decedent’s

1
NYSBA Ethics Opinion #610- 6/20/90 (2-90)

6 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

Estates, § 541 (2002); Matter of Miller, 134 Misc. 671 (Sur. Ct., Columbia Co. 1929);
Matter of Hermann, 87 Misc. 476 (Sur. Ct., New York Co. 1914).

47. In the context of a lost will proceeding, a testator’s declarations are not admissible either
to prove revocation of her will or to prove its continued existence unless such admissions
are part of the res gestae. Matter of Bonner, 17 N.Y.2d 9 (1966); Matter of Engelken,
103 Misc. 2d 772 (Sur. Ct., Nassau Co. 1980).

48. Accordingly, to rebut the presumption of undue influence, two of testator’s journal
entries (Annexed hereto as Exhibits “E” & “F”) are submitted herewith to shed light
on the res gestae, or “thing done” establishing the “obviousness” of testator’s intent to
appoint her son as Lawyer-Draftsman-Executor and sole Beneficiary of her will.

9/23/08 2:22 am
Ever since Bob retired in 2006, Bobby has insisted on cutting
down on his law practice and staying here with Bob & I—just in
case I need him! And I need him—God do I!! If it weren’t for
Bobby with all his legal advice, companionship, and help, Bob and
I probably would be out on the streets God knows where!
I know I’ve told him over and over what a wonderful son he
is and that I’m so grateful for him—but I can’t help feeling I’m
keeping him from going out and finding a family of his own.
Tory and Michael on the other hand have moved 2 yrs. ago
to N.C. and now have a beautiful little girl named Caitlyn. Gas and
plane fare is so expensive that neither of us seem to be able to
arrange a get together. I’m almost certain Tory has no idea just how
much of her father’s brain has turned to mush—but I really try to
keep her up to date. 2

Wed. Jan. 09
Good morning journal!! Here I am sitting at the kitchen
counter eating oatmeal and wondering what’s in store for me today!
Christmas & New Years it was only Bobby & me—cause we
didn’t want to wake Bob up for fear he wouldn’t go back to sleep.
Yes, this past year has been quite a challenge and test for me
and Bobby as well. Bob now requires round the clock supervision
and care; and as much as I want Bobby to find a life of his own—I
can’t begin to imagine how I could have gotten through 2008
without him! Sure he grumbles and screams sometimes about all I
ask of him, but his heart must be made out of pure gold—cause even
with all the yelling and screaming – in the end he’s always right
2
See Exhibit “E”

7 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

there - - grumbling or muttering to himself—but irregardless I know
how often when I say my prayers at nite, I never no not ever will be
able to thank him and tell him just how very much he’s loved. He
keeps saying he isn’t looking for a mate—that he knows to a shadow
of a doubt that this is where God intended for him to be and most of
the time he seems to be ok with it.
My baby Tory lives in N.C. and her husband Mike and my 1
½ yr. old grandbaby Caitlyn. I honestly don’t think she would have
jumped in to help me & Bob like Bobby did, but I know she really
loves her Daddy!
But somehow, every time I think of her, I can’t help but
remember that summer of 2007 when I flew down there 1 week
before the baby was due—only to get a frantic call from Bobby
telling me that Bob was out of control and he didn’t know how to
handle him and could I please come home soon. Even tho Joe and
Audrey came by to help, Bobby just found it really exasperating
dealing with Bob’s deepening dementia.
So, after I hung up with him @ Tory’s house, I told her that
her father needed me more than she did birthing this baby and that I
hated to leave before she’s been born, but I had to leave. I won’t
get into details, cause I can still hear them, even now, her words to
me regarding my deserting her and that she really was surprised
when she …(illegible)…! But she also let me know she would never
let me see or hold Caitlyn ever—& so on, & so on.
It got so bad, I had to ask Bobby to find me a car or limo to get me
to the airport that next morning—cause she as much said: “Just let
me know if I (Tory) have to get up earlier than usual – so’s I can
drop you (me) off at the curb at the terminal.” So that nite Bobby
found me a ride. And sure enough at 6 am as I snuck down the stairs
with my luggage (never saying goodbye) I waited for about 10 min
and sure enough this wonderful man (Bobby J(illegible)) was just
then pulling in Tory’s driveway. I’ve never in my life been so glad
to see someone—yet, at the same time, so unbelievably hurt and
heartbroken that she had literally “thrown me to the curb.” 3
49. As shown above, the testator’s journals bear witness to a daughter who loved “her
Daddy” almost as much as she loved psychologically torturing and dominating her
mother. Thus, the decedent’s journals not only rebut the inference of undue influence,
Matter of Lamonica, 199 A.D.2d 503 (2d Dep’t 1993), but demonstrate the terms of the
propounded Will are testament to her gratitude for all her son sacrificed to ensure his
father could live out the rest of his days at home rather than a nursing facility.

3
See Exhibit “F”

8 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

50. To be clear, the res gestae, or “thing done” here finds acknowledgment in 18 NYCRR §
360-4.4(C)(ii)(b)(4) which exempts the homestead as counting towards Medicaid
ineligibility so long as it’s transferred to:

4) a son or daughter of such person who was residing in such home
for a period of at least two years immediately before the date the
person becomes institutionalized, and who provided care to such
person which permitted such person to reside at home rather
than in an institution or facility;

51. In other words, res gestae, in this case, means testator’s expression of gratitude for all your
Petitioner sacrificed to ensure his mother and father lived out their last days together in
their own home. Sacrifice, to be sure, means having your parents’ backs like they had
yours growing up. It means you’d sooner wrap your lips around a revolver than live with
the guilt of turning away. Even if that means you’ll watch helplessly as everyone in your
life moves on with theirs while you’re shackled with the intuition that anything less means
letting everyone down.

All of the provisions of the will are clearly and distinctly proved by each of at least two
credible witnesses or by a copy or draft of the will proved to be true and complete.

52. The Will’s two witnesses, David Warren and his wife Michelle Pepe Warren knew my
mother very well. She’d known my lifelong friend David since he was a toddler and his
wife Michelle since they married in 2009. They will confirm that my mother executed
her Will naming me as executor and sole beneficiary to insure I wouldn’t be left penniless
and homeless after sacrificing everything to care for my father and her.

53. Now, my sister, who sacrificed nothing, much less acknowledged the social, emotional,
and physical price I paid to keep “her Daddy” out of a nursing home, stands poised to
“throw me to the curb” like she did our mother.

54. Moreover, with the haste of a criminal on the run, she’s offering to sell my home at far
below market value just to dump it, me, and my dogs as quickly as possible.

55. Fatetur facinus qui judicium fugit – she who flees judgment confesses her guilt. Meaning,
my sister’s guilty conscience for lying to the Court about having no knowledge of our
mother’s Last Will and Testament naming your Petitioner as sole residuary beneficiary is
the driving force behind her rush to “throw me to the curb” as quickly as possible.

9 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Due to Improper Service

56. As an attorney, your Petitioner knew he was owed due diligence in service of process
upon him. Thus, your Petitioner expected no less than a couple of attempts at personal
delivery under CPLR 308 (1). Failing that, your Petitioner was owed substituted service
under CPLR 308 (2). However, while my dogs are “of suitable age and discretion,”—
i.e., housebroken—I’m the only “person” residing at “the dwelling place … of the person
to be served;” thereby making service under CPLR 308 (2) unavailable. THENCE,
“where service under [CPLR 308 (1) and (2) could not] be made with due diligence,”
your Petitioner expected service under CPLR 308 (4); with one copy affixed to the door
and a follow up copy delivered by regular mail. Two copies of the citation at minimum.

57. Instead, your Petitioner was served pursuant to the Surrogate’s blanket “ORDER FOR
ALTERNATE SERVICE” (annexed hereto as Exhibit “G”), which opened thusly:

In recognition of executive and administrative orders in effect in
response to COVID-19 and in order to maintain safe protocols by
limiting personal interaction and potential COVID-19 exposures,
the Court finds that personal service of the citation in this proceeding
is impracticable. The Court finds it appropriate to direct alternative
service, pursuant to the authority set forth in SCPA 307(3) in a
manner consistent with the current exigencies and most likely to
effectuate actual notice to those cited in this proceeding. …

10 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

58. SCPA 307 (3), an analog to CPLR 308(5), provides in pertinent part:

3. Service by court order. As an alternative to service under
subdivisions 1 and 2, service may be made in the manner directed
by the court; but such service, except as provided by subdivision
6, shall not be ordered upon a domiciliary natural person unless
it be shown that, with due diligence, service by personal delivery
within the state cannot be effected, or where for good cause
shown, personal service within the state would be impracticable.
Any proof necessary hereunder may be submitted in the petition or
by affidavit.
59. There was no “due diligence;” and there was no “good cause shown” that personal
service would be impracticable. Impracticability of service was merely presumed by
order of the Surrogate who was following an Order of the Administrative Judge of
Suffolk County who was following the Order of the Chief Administrative Judge who
rewrote the rules of personal service of process in the throes of Jacobson-induced Ano-
Olecranon Agnosia.

60. Judges can’t re-write laws, not even during an alleged “pandemic,” because the
Judiciary has no police powers. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 30-31
(1905). Since the Chief Administrative Judge lacks the requisite police powers to
rewrite SCPA 307 as if he was the NY Legislature, the Surrogate had no authority to
issue a blanket order directing service by mail under SCPA 307 (3) in all cases
commenced before it.

61. As the Second Department ruled in Jean v. Csencsits, 171 A.D.3d 1149, (N.Y. App. Div.
2019):

CPLR 308 (5) vests a court with the discretion to direct an
alternative method of service of process when it has determined that
the methods set forth in CPLR 308 (1), (2) and (4), which provide
for service by personal delivery, delivery and mail, and affixing and
mailing, respectively, are impracticable [citations omitted]. The
impracticability standard does not require the applicant to satisfy
the more stringent standard of due diligence under CPLR 308 (4)
nor make an actual showing that service has been attempted
pursuant to CPLR 308 (1), (2) and (4) [citations omitted] "Once the
impracticability standard is satisfied, due process requires that
the method of service be 'reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances, to apprise' the defendant of the action"
(Contimortgage Corp. v Isler, 48 AD3d at 734, quoting Mullane v
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 US 306, 314 [1950]).
(Emphasis added.)

11 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

62. Nothing was ‘reasonably calculated under the circumstances’ here because the Court
had no reason to conclude “the impracticability standard [was] satisfied.”

63. Assuming arguendo that the Chief Administrative Judge could issue a blanket order
directing alternate service in every matter before a Surrogate—as if he was the NYS
Legislature—there was no basis in reality for concluding that personal service on your
Petitioner would be impracticable. Rather, the Chief Administrative Judge, the
Administrative Judge of Suffolk County, and the Surrogate merely presumed personal
service to be impracticable based on laws both written and executed by the Governor;
evidenced by boilerplate like this:

All Executive Orders … issued in response to the COVID-19
(coronavirus) public health crisis are incorporated by reference
in this Administrative Order….
64. This, of course, refers to Governor Cuomo’s “COVID mitigation mandates”—i.e.,
lockdowns, social distancing, and masking mandates—which, as will be shown, never
qualified as legitimate ‘exercises of state police power’ under the Jacobson standard.
Moreover, even if we assume their legitimacy arguendo, Governor Cuomo’s ‘COVID
mitigation mandates’ only rendered Personal and Substituted service impracticable under
CPLR 308 (1) & (2) respectively.

65. There was absolutely nothing impracticable about “Nail & Mail” service under
CPLR 308 (4). In fact, the only difference between “Nail & Mail” service and business
as usual in the “new normal” was the “affixing” part. From Amazon to Uber Eats,
packages and food were left outside people’s doors, followed by emails containing
pictures confirming delivery. Basically, life during the alleged pandemic was conducted
pursuant to CPLR 308 (4)—sans ‘affixing.’ Thus, the Court had no rational justification
for deeming personal service impracticable.

The Surrogate’s Court, Like the Rest of New York’s Judiciary,
Is Detached from Reality—Present Company Excepted, of Course.
66. As low as the impracticability standard may be, it’s meaningless if the Judiciary
applying it is detached from reality. Yes, I’m acutely aware of how farfetched that
sounded. Nonetheless, COVID-19 has diminished the Judiciary’s reasoning skills to the
level of an Article 81 candidate; since its inability to understand or appreciate the nature
and consequences of clinging to provenly fraudulent narratives has rendered it
“incapacitated.”

67. COVID-19 is only as lethal as “a severe seasonal influenza” and does not spread
asymptomatically. Yet the Judiciary, as if caught in a hypnotic trance bereft of ethical
self-awareness and capacity for critical thought, still bases its decisions upon the
provenly fraudulent narratives that it’s “ten times more lethal than the flu” and the first
epidemic in history driven by asymptomatic transmission.

12 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

68. In fact, as of 8/11/2022, the CDC has effectively confessed that the lethality and
asymptomatic spread narratives about COVID-19 were fraudulent. From NPR: “The
new COVID-19 guidance from the CDC focuses on individual decisions.” Two bullet
points of interest:

• Those exposed to the virus are no longer required to quarantine.
• Unvaccinated people now have the same guidance as vaccinated people.
69. With all due respect, I defy the court to show how those two guidance changes comport
with the Frye standard. As demonstrated within your Petitioner’s Memorandum of
Law—withheld from immediate submission due to exigent circumstances—the ‘science’
underlying COVID-19 comprises nothing more than deceitful narratives fostering the
illusion of a lethal pandemic warranting use of emergency powers to “fundamentally
transform” the United States into a technocratic totalitarian state.

70. Case in point: By Memo of June 15, 2022, “Re: Modifications to COVID-19
Protocols,” the Office of Court Administration claims the power to force healthy people
to wear masks if said dissidents fail to subject their bodies to experimental gene-editing
injections posing as “vaccines.” Apparently, the OCA couldn’t care less that Article 21
of the NY Public Health Law strictly limits the state’s quarantine power to the
“isolation of [ACTUAL] cases” 4 of communicable disease; thereby giving its ‘COVID-
19 Protocols’ all the legal heft of: “I’ve got the conch!”

71. That’s not a Judiciary acting injudiciously. That’s a Judiciary detached from reality.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines Contempt of Court as: “Any
act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court
in administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its
authority or its dignity.”

72. Query: What if taunting the Court was the surest way possible to interrupt its dogmatic
slumber and thereby restore its capacity for administering justice? And by that, I don’t
mean it in the “David Hume … interrupted [Immanuel Kant’s] dogmatic slumber”
sense. I’m talking about goading the Judiciary out of the semi-somnambulistic state of
“mass formation” it’s been caught in since the inception of this alleged “pandemic.”
Dr. Mattias Desmet: …Why did totalitarianism as a form of
statehood emerge for the first time in the first half of the twentieth
century? And moreover: What is the difference between it and the
classical dictatorships of the past? The essence of this difference, …
lies within the field of psychology.

4
NY Pub Health L § 2100 (2) (a) “Every local board of health and every health officer may: (a) provide for care
and isolation of cases of communicable disease in a hospital or elsewhere when necessary for protection of the
public health.”

13 of 21
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 617118/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/29/2022

Dictatorships are based on a primitive psychological mechanism,
namely on the creation of a climate of fear amongst the population,
based on the brutal potential of the dictatorial regime.
Totalitarianism, on the other hand, has its roots in the insidious
psychological process of mass formation. Only a thorough analysis
of this process enables us to understand the shocking behaviors of a
“totalitarized” population, including an exaggerated willingness of
individuals to sacrifice their own personal interests out of solidarity
with the collective (i.e., the masses), a profound intolerance of
dissident voices, and pronounced susceptibility to pseudo-scientific
indoctrination and propaganda.
Mass formation is, in essence, a kind of group hypnosis that
destroys individuals’ ethical self-awareness and robs them of
their ability to think critically. This process is insidious in nature;
populations fall prey to it unsuspectingly. 5
73. Once upon a time in 1976, back when humans used rotary phones and ‘thought digital
watches were a pretty neat idea,’ the Swine Flu Vaccine was pulled from circulation just
three months after its release because it was suspected of paralyzing 94 people and
killing four.

74. The New York Times reported thusly:
SWINE FLU PROGRAM SUSPENDED IN NATION; DISEASE LINK
FEARED, New York Times, By Lawrence K. Altman, Dec. 17, 1976
Federal officials suspended the troubled nationwide swine flu
immunization program yesterday because of concern that the shots were
possibly linked to recently reported cases of paralysis.
Since the end of last week, the Federal Center for Disease Control in
Atlanta, which runs the nationwide immunization program, has been
investigating reports from at least 14 states of 94 cases, four of them fatal,
of a form of paralysis called the Guillain‐Barré syndrome.
Federal epidemiologists said that they could neither prove nor disprove
the possible connection between the paralysis and the swine flu shots.
But to be on the safe side, Federal officials ordered the program halted
late yesterday afternoon.
Of the 94 reported cases of paralysis, 51, including the four deaths,
involved persons who had received swine flu shots between one and three

Case Info

Judge

Paul M Hensley Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 26, 2022

Case Filing Date

August 26, 2022

County

Complaint,Petition: Robert S. Stone Jr. v. Victoria Anne Jordan

Preview

Case Info

Parties

Related Documents in Suffolk County

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Complaint,Petition: Robert S. Stone Jr. v. Victoria Anne Jordan

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties

Related Documents in Suffolk County

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document