## Facts

- John Giannopoulos died domiciled in New York, and his estate was before the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County.
- Areti Janopulli, also known as Areti Giannopoulos, asserted she was John’s surviving spouse. She lived in Albania.
- A New York law firm sought to act for Areti in the estate proceeding based on a power of attorney (POA) that the firm claimed Areti executed in Albania.
- The firm submitted the foreign-executed POA to the Surrogate’s Court clerk for recording and then asked the court to entertain an application concerning Areti’s right of election to take against John’s will (and, in the alternative, relief from default and an enlargement of time to elect).
- The court reviewed the POA and the papers filed with it and identified several defects under EPTL 13-2.3, the governing Uniform Rules for Surrogate’s Courts (Second Department), and the statutes governing acknowledgments and proof for instruments executed outside New York.
- The POA and related submissions were deficient because:
  - the POA did not state the grantor’s full post office address; the only address given was “Fier, Albania,” even though the election application listed house numbers for other persons in Fier;
  - the firm stated the POA was obtained through Albanian “forwarders” known as “Shoqeria Komisionaria,” but did not explain who or what that entity was or what interest it had in the matter;
  - the firm asserted a contingent fee arrangement (20% of the net recovery to the client plus expenses) without showing that the client agreed to it in writing or providing a copy of any compensation agreement as required by the court rule;
  - the POA was in a foreign language and was accompanied by an English translation that was not supported by an affidavit establishing the translator’s qualifications and the accuracy of the translation;
  - the acknowledgment/authentication materials for the foreign-executed instrument did not satisfy New York’s requirements (as incorporated by EPTL 13-2.3 for estate-related powers of attorney to be acknowledged/proved like real property conveyances).
- Although the clerk had accepted and recorded the POA, the Surrogate examined whether it should have been accepted for filing and whether the court would act on an application based on it.

## Issues

1. Whether the power of attorney allegedly executed in Albania and the accompanying papers satisfied EPTL 13-2.3, the applicable Surrogate’s Court rules, and New York acknowledgment/authentication requirements so that it could be relied on in the estate proceeding.
2. Whether the court should entertain the widow’s elective-share application (or related request for relief and more time to elect) when counsel’s authority depended on a POA with material omissions and unsupported disclosures.

## Decision

- The court found that the POA and the papers submitted with it did not satisfy the applicable provisions of the Uniform Rules, the Real Property Law, and the CPLR requirements incorporated by EPTL 13-2.3.
- The court concluded that the instrument and accompanying papers should not have been accepted for filing/recording in the Surrogate’s Court on the showing made.
- Because the law firm’s claimed authority to proceed depended on that defective POA, the court declined to proceed on the application based on the existing submission.

## Legal Principles

- Under EPTL 13-2.3, a power of attorney relating to an interest in a decedent’s estate must be in writing, acknowledged or proved as required for recording a real property conveyance, and recorded in the Surrogate’s Court; the Surrogate may inquire into the instrument’s validity.
- The Uniform Rules for Surrogate’s Courts (Second Department) permit filing/recording of such a POA only when the proponent supplies the disclosures required by rule, including the grantor’s address, the circumstances of procurement, and the exact terms of compensation for the attorney-in-fact or any other person involved, along with copies of compensation agreements.
- When a POA is procured through an intermediary, the court may require a clear showing of who the intermediary is and what interest, including any financial interest, the intermediary has in the matter.
- A foreign-language POA submitted for use in Surrogate’s Court must be accompanied by a reliable English translation supported by an affidavit showing the translator’s qualifications and the translation’s accuracy.
- If a foreign-executed POA and its authentication/acknowledgment papers do not satisfy New York statutory requirements, the Surrogate’s Court may refuse to rely on it and may decline to act on applications that rest on that defective authority.

## Conclusion

The Surrogate’s Court refused to act on the Albanian widow’s requested relief regarding her elective share because the power of attorney and supporting materials—address information, procurement disclosures, fee documentation, translation proof, and foreign-execution authentication—failed to meet New York’s estate-related filing and evidentiary requirements, making the law firm’s claimed authority insufficient on the record presented.


Estate of Giannopoulos, 392 N.Y.S.2d 828, 89 Misc. 2d 691 (1977)