Matter of Lissner (Regenstein)

Matter of Lissner (Regenstein) 2025 NY Slip Op 33751(U) October 7, 2025 Surrogate's Court, New York County Docket Number: File No. 2014-3481 Judge: Rita Mella Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

ENTERED SURROGATE'S COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK OCT O7 2025 COUNTY OF NEW YORK DATA ENTRY DEPT -------------------------------------------------------------------------x N~w Yor1< c0 u,.\-; s,Jrrngate's Court In the Matter of the First and Final Account of Michael D. Lissner, and Stephan S. Lieberman and Rochelle Edelstein, as Executors of the Estate of Fay Kurzban, as Trustees of the Sophie Regenstein Living DECISION and ORDER Trust by Agreement Dated August 31, 2001, as Amended, by File No.: 2014-3481

SOPHIE REGENSTEIN,

Grantor. -------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MELLA,S.:

The following papers were considered in determining David Selinger's two motions requesting that the court make criminal referrals to the District Attorney, and other relief:

Papers Considered Numbered

Motion #1: David Selinger's Notice of Motion, dated June 10, 2025, Affirmation of David Selinger in Support, dated June 10, 2025, with Exhibits, Brief in Support of Motion 1-3

Motion #2: David Selinger's Notice of Motion, dated September 10, 2025, Affirmation of David Selinger in Support, dated September 10, 2025, with Exhibits, Brief in Support of Motion 4-6

Before the court in this final accounting proceeding, commenced by the Trustees of the

Sophie Regenstein Living Trust, dated August 31, 2001, as amended (Trust), are two motions by

David Selinger (Movant), appearing prose. In the first motion, Movant requests that the court:

( 1) make a criminal referral to the District Attorney for an investigation of alleged acts of

Michael D. Lissner (Lissner), who is the Trustee of the Trust, and Stephen S. Lieberman [* 1]

(Lieberman) and Rochelle Edelstein (Edelstein), who are the Executors of the estate of a

deceased Trustee of the Trust, and (2) rule on Selinger' s prior motion for a criminal referral to

the District Attorney regarding alleged acts of Lissner (Motion # 1). In the second motion, he

asks for another criminal referral to the District Attorney based on alleged acts by Benjamin

Mellors, Esq. (Mellors), who represents Lissner, Lieberman and Edelstein in this accounting

proceeding (Motion #2). For the reasons stated below, both motions are denied in their entirety.

Sophie Regenstein (Grantor) established the Trust for her lifetime benefit, with the

remainder distributable outright to her four nephews, one of whom is Movant. The Grantor acted

as sole Trustee until her death on July 15, 2013. Pursuant to the provisions of the Trust, Lissner

and Fay Kurzban (Kurzban) then became Successor Co-Trustees.

In September 2014, Lissner and Kurzban (Trustees) commenced the instant proceeding to

settle their account, which as amended, covers the period from July15, 2013 to January 15, 2015.

Since then, they have been embroiled in litigation with Movant. However, for present purposes,

only two facts are important to note. First, Kurzban died on September 21, 2023, leaving Lissner

as the sole surviving Trustee. Lieberman and Edelstein, as Executors of Kurzban's estate, were

then substituted into this proceeding by order dated December 27, 2024 (see SCPA 2207[3]).

Second, Movant lodged his opposition to the accounting by filing an Answer. On January 31,

2025, the court granted from the bench the Trustees' motion to dismiss Movant's claims, finding

that his Answer did not set forth any cognizable issues related to the Trustees' account (Account)

and thus failed to meet the basic pleading requirement of SCPA 302(2). Since Movant was the

only party to object to the Account, at this time all that remains is for Petitioners to supplement

the Account if they wish to obtain a final decree.

2 [* 2]

Discussion

Motion #1 - Selinger's Motion for Criminal Referral of Lissner, Lieberman and Edelstein

Movant alleges that Lissner, Lieberman and Edelstein (Petitioners) have failed to pay to

the other three beneficiaries their remaining share of the Trust's assets, which he computes as

$26,901 for each of them. He alleges that Petitioners' failure to distribute the remaining trust

assets constitutes multiple criminal acts, which he identifies as grand larceny and criminal

possession of stolen property in various degrees. Movant' s rationale for his claim of criminal

conduct is that the other beneficiaries executed receipt and release documents (Receipt and

Release) prior to the commencement of this proceeding, which acknowledged receipt of their full

share of the trust assets in the context of an informal accounting, but they did not receive the

remaining funds.

The court finds no basis in fact or in law to grant such relief. As explained by the court

in its July 7, 2025 decision (see Matter of Regenstein NYLJ, July 10, 2025, at 8, col 2 [Sur Ct,

NY County]) (July 7th Decision), the execution of a Receipt and Release of this type is

customary in the trusts and estates field, where the parties wish to informally settle their account

to avoid the costs and delays often incurred with a judicial accounting (see 7 Warren's Heaton on

Surrogate's Court Practice, 91.04 [3]). But, where one party, in this case Movant, foregoes this

informal process and a judicial accounting is required, the Petitioners here could not make the

final payment contemplated in the Receipt and Release to any of the remainder beneficiaries,

even those who signed a Receipt and Release, since the Petitioners could be rightly faulted for

making unequal distributions. In addition, even if that were not the case, it is entirely

permissible, and indeed understandable under these circumstances, that the Petitioners would

3 [* 3]

withhold making final distributions until the final accounting decree is entered, as administration

expenses of the Trust continue to accrue, in particular, legal fees as a result of ongoing litigation.

As for Movant' s request for a ruling on his prior motion in which he also sought a th criminal referral of Lissner, this relief is moot, as the court denied the motion in its July 7

Decision. For all these reasons, Motion #1 is denied in its entirety.

Motion #2 - Selinger's Motion for Criminal Referral of Benjamin Mellors

Movant also asks the court to make a criminal referral for the investigation of alleged acts

by Mellors. Movant alleges that Mellors committed various crimes, identified by him, inter alia,

as forgery and filing false instruments, in connection with this proceeding. Movant previously

made a motion seeking virtually identical relief alleging that Mellors filed "false instruments

with the court." The court denied that motion from the bench on March 14, 2025, finding the

allegations to be baseless. To the extent Motion #2 involves allegations that Mellors filed false

instruments with the court, that portion of the motion is denied as the court has already deemed

those allegations insufficient to warrant a criminal referral. Furthermore, the court finds the

remaining allegations of misconduct attributed to Mellors to be without merit. Accordingly,

Motion #2 is denied in its entirety.

Finally, the court is compelled to address Movant's litigiousness. Movant has filed

eleven motions in this proceeding, including the two motions addressed herein. All but one

motion was denied, 1 with the court ruling that the motions were either procedurally defective,

duplicative, unnecessary or moot. In addition, Movant also filed multiple motions in another

accounting proceeding involving a nearly identical trust, the Sophie Regenstein German

1 Movant made a motion to compel disclosure of trust account statements, which the court granted from the bench on January 31, 2025.

4 [* 4]

Restitution Trust (File No.: 2014-3481/A). All these motions were denied as well on similar

grounds.

At the call of this court's calendar on January 31, 2025, after granting the Trustees'

motion to dismiss Movant's Answer and denying five of his motions from the bench, the court

warned Movant on the record that it would consider enjoining him from commencing future

proceedings or making further motions that assert that the Petitioners or any of their lawyers

have engaged in criminal conduct. Notwithstanding that admonition, Movant filed the instant

motions, which contain allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of Petitioners and Mellors,

respectively, without providing any substantial basis for making those assertions. He did so even

though he had been present on the court's virtual proceedings held via the Microsoft Teams

platform on January 31, 2025, when the court warned Movant against such filings, and again on

March 14, 2025, when the court denied from the bench his motion alleging misconduct with

regard to Mellors. Thus, at the time he made the second motion decided here (which concerns

Mellors), he was aware that the court had previously denied his motion seeking similar relief. In

total, Movant has now brought four motions alleging criminal misconduct of the Trustees and/or

their counsel, all having been determined by this court to be meritless.

The court observes as well that Movant' s Answer in this proceeding also contained

baseless allegations of misconduct by Lissner, including statements that Lissner had been

convicted of a crime, when he had not. It is clear from the record of this proceeding and the

related proceeding regarding the Sophie Regenstein German Restitution Trust that Movant has a

penchant for frivolous litigation.

Courts have the authority to enjoin parties "from using legal proceedings as a means of

harassment, and to prevent waste of the time and resources of the parties and the judiciary"

5 [* 5]

(Eremeyev v Mount Sinai Hospital, 2012 NY Slip Op 33426[U] *27-28 [Sup Ct, Bronx County

2012]; see Jones v Maples, 286 AD2d 639 [1st Dept 2001]). Here, based on the record before

the court of Movant' s past actions, the court finds itself compelled to enjoin him from

commencing any proceeding or bringing any motion in which he alleges misconduct on the part

of Petitioners or their lawyers in this court in connection with the Sophie Regenstein Living

Trust, without obtaining prior court approval. The court will consider further injunctions and/or

sanctions against Movant if he continues to pursue frivolous litigation in this proceeding as well

as in the related accounting proceeding in connection with the Sophie Regenstein German

Restitution Trust.

This decision constitutes the order of the court.

The Clerk of the Court shall email a copy of this decision to the parties and counsel listed

at the foot of this decision.

Dated: October 7, 2025 S~TE

TO:

Michael D. Lissner, Esq. David Selinger Benjamin Mellors, Esq. 1619 Willowspring Drive North Lissner & Lissner LLP Encinitas, CA 92024-1991 162 West 56 th Street, Suite 506 dave246@gmail.com New York, NY 10019 Respondent Pro Se mlissner@lissnerlawfirm.c om bmellors@lissnerlawfirm.com Sally M. Donohue, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioners Assistant Attorney General Charities Bureau John R. Morken, Esq. 28 Liberty Street, 9th Fl. Farrell Fritz, P.C. New York, NY 10271 400 RXR Plaza, 3rd Floor Rebecca. Gideon@ag-ny.gov Uniondale, NY 11556 On Behalf of Charitable Beneficiaries JMorken@FarrellFritz.com Attorneys for Petitioners

6 [* 6]