<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/wp-content/themes/feed/atom.xsl"?>
<feed
        xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
        xmlns:wwe="http://release.wwe.com/atom/1.0"
        xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0"
        xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
        xml:lang="en-US"
        xml:base="https://www.creedongill.com/wp-atom.php"
	>
    <title type="text">Creedon &amp; Gill P.C.</title>
    <subtitle type="text">Creedon &#38; Gill P.C.</subtitle>

    <updated>2026-03-23T18:19:12Z</updated>

    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.creedongill.com" />
    <id>https://www.creedongill.com/feed/atom/</id>
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.creedongill.com/feed/atom/?forceByPassCache=0.5967031458697423" />
	
	<generator uri="https://wordpress.org/" version="6.9.4">WordPress</generator>
<icon>/wp-content/uploads/sites/1503161/2020/10/cropped-favi-32x32.jpg</icon>
        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>by Creedon &amp; Gill P.C.</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[Foreclosing on a Mechanics Lien.]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/03/foreclosing-on-a-mechanics-lien/" />
            <id>https://www.creedongill.com/?p=47701</id>
            <updated>2026-03-23T18:19:12Z</updated>
            <published>2026-03-23T18:19:12Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[At Creedon & Gill, we recently secured a significant victory on behalf of our client, a prominent general contractor, defeating a building owner’s attempt to dismiss a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action in New York County Supreme Court. The case arose out of a large-scale residential renovation project involving properties in Manhattan, where our client served as the general contractor. As…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/03/foreclosing-on-a-mechanics-lien/"><![CDATA[At Creedon & Gill, we recently secured a significant victory on behalf of our client, a prominent general contractor, defeating a building owner’s attempt to dismiss a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action in New York County Supreme Court. The case arose out of a large-scale residential renovation project involving properties in Manhattan, where our client  served as the general contractor. As reflected in the record, the project became substantially more complex than originally anticipated due to defective architectural plans, repeated revisions to the scope of work, and continuous changes that required completed work to be torn out and redone, conditions which the owner’s own representative described as having “exploded.”

As the project progressed, our client performed extensive additional work pursuant to the contract’s pricing structure and change order provisions, submitted requisitions and supporting documentation, and continued performance in reliance on the expectation of payment. However, as detailed in our opposition papers, the owner fell behind on payment of undisputed amounts, delayed approval of change orders, and ultimately refused to fund the project unless our client agreed to relinquish substantial claims. When our client declined to waive those rights, it was left without the financial ability to continue performance. Our client then exercised its statutory rights by filing mechanic’s liens and commencing foreclosure actions to recover the amounts due.

In response, the owner moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the lien foreclosure action, arguing that our client's lien was “willfully exaggerated” under New York Lien Law § 39, a claim that, if proven, would invalidate the lien. The owner contended that certain charges were improper, that portions of the work had already been paid, and that our client documentation was insufficient. We opposed that motion by demonstrating that our clientclaims were grounded in the contract, supported by detailed records, and reflected work actually performed, and further that any alleged discrepancies raised, at most, issues of fact rather than evidence of intentional exaggeration.

The Court agreed and denied the motion in its entirety. 👉 The Court held that the owner failed to meet its burden of establishing willful exaggeration, emphasizing that such a finding requires proof of intentional inflation, not merely a dispute over amounts owed or the valuation of work. The Court further reaffirmed that the issue of whether a lien is willfully exaggerated is generally a question for trial, not one to be resolved on summary judgment, and that an inaccuracy in the amount of a lien does not invalidate it absent proof of willfulness. The Court concluded that the owner failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to dismissal of our client's foreclosure claim, allowing the action to proceed.

This decision underscores several critical principles in New York construction law: mechanic’s liens remain a powerful and protected remedy for contractors, claims of willful exaggeration are subject to a high evidentiary standard requiring proof of intentional misconduct rather than mere disagreement, disputes over change orders, scope, or payment typically present factual issues unsuitable for summary disposition, and owners cannot defeat lien claims simply by recharacterizing legitimate disputes as exaggeration. Ultimately, this outcome reinforces that contractors who perform their work, document their claims, and proceed in accordance with their contractual rights will be afforded the protections of the Lien Law, and that attempts to avoid payment through unsupported legal theories will not succeed.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>by Creedon &amp; Gill P.C.</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[When Family Trust Disputes Put Elderly Beneficiaries at Risk: A Nassau County Case]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/03/when-family-trust-disputes-put-elderly-beneficiaries-at-risk-a-nassau-county-case/" />
            <id>https://www.creedongill.com/?p=47699</id>
            <updated>2026-03-16T22:02:54Z</updated>
            <published>2026-03-16T22:01:09Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[Disputes over the administration of family trusts often arise when the interests of beneficiaries, trustees, and other family members diverge. In some cases, the conflict becomes so severe that court intervention is required to protect vulnerable beneficiaries and ensure that trust assets are administered properly. A recently filed proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York illustrates…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/03/when-family-trust-disputes-put-elderly-beneficiaries-at-risk-a-nassau-county-case/"><![CDATA[Disputes over the administration of family trusts often arise when the interests of beneficiaries, trustees, and other family members diverge. In some cases, the conflict becomes so severe that court intervention is required to protect vulnerable beneficiaries and ensure that trust assets are administered properly. A recently filed proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York illustrates how such disputes can unfold when questions arise regarding the creation and management of a trust, the financial security of elderly individuals, and the transparency of a trustee’s actions.

The matter concerns the administration of an irrevocable trust that was created during a period when the elderly grantor was hospitalized and receiving medical treatment. The trust was established through the use of a power of attorney by a family member who then assumed the role of trustee. Following the creation of the trust, substantial assets belonging to the grantor—including the marital residence and financial accounts—were transferred into the trust. The petitioner, who is the spouse of the grantor and a beneficiary of the trust, alleges that neither she nor the grantor were meaningfully consulted regarding the creation of the trust or the transfer of assets. Prior to the establishment of the trust, the petitioner had managed the household finances and handled the couple’s routine financial obligations.

According to the petition filed with the court, the trust was not structured or administered in a manner intended to safeguard the financial well-being of the elderly couple. Instead, the petitioner alleges that the trust operates in a way that leaves essential financial decisions within the sole discretion of the trustee and fails to provide adequate assurances regarding the continued stability of the couple’s living arrangements and financial security. Concerns have also been raised regarding the absence of transparency in the administration of the trust, including the lack of clear information regarding the income generated by trust assets and the manner in which those assets are being managed.

The petitioner further asserts that disputes and hostility among family members have created circumstances that interfere with the orderly administration of the trust. The allegations describe an environment of distrust and conflict that has undermined the ability of the trustee and beneficiaries to work cooperatively. Courts have long recognized that extreme hostility between a trustee and beneficiaries may justify judicial intervention, particularly where such animosity threatens to impede the proper execution of the trust.

In addition to the broader dispute regarding the administration of the trust, the petitioner has raised concerns about the financial obligations associated with the marital residence. The residence remains subject to a residential mortgage that was incurred in the grantor’s name prior to the transfer of assets into the trust. Questions have arisen regarding whether the lender has been notified of the transfer of the property into the trust, as many residential mortgage agreements contain provisions that permit a lender to accelerate the loan if ownership of the property is transferred without notice or consent. The petitioner alleges that uncertainty surrounding the payment of the mortgage and the administration of the property has created a risk that the residence could become subject to acceleration or foreclosure, potentially placing the elderly occupants in jeopardy.

Given these circumstances, the petitioner commenced a proceeding seeking judicial relief relating to the administration of the trust. Among other things, the petitioner seeks the removal of the trustee and the appointment of an independent fiduciary to administer the trust in a neutral and transparent manner. The petition also requests court intervention to ensure that financial information regarding the trust is disclosed and that appropriate measures are taken to safeguard the assets of the trust and the welfare of the elderly individuals whose financial security is at stake.

The court has issued an order directing the respondents to appear and show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. In addition, the petitioner seeks interim measures intended to stabilize the financial situation while the litigation proceeds, including oversight of the trust’s finances and the appointment of a neutral fiduciary. The petitioner also asks the court to consider the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the elderly grantor, given questions that have arisen concerning his age, health, and ability to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting the administration of his assets.

Cases involving the administration of family trusts frequently present difficult questions for courts, particularly when the dispute arises within the context of family relationships and the care of elderly individuals. Trustees are fiduciaries who are obligated to act with loyalty, prudence, and transparency in the management of trust assets. When allegations arise that a trustee has failed to fulfill those obligations, courts may intervene to protect beneficiaries and ensure that the purposes of the trust are carried out. The litigation now pending before the court will require careful consideration of these issues, including whether the administration of the trust has been conducted in a manner consistent with the fiduciary duties imposed under New York law and whether the appointment of a neutral fiduciary is necessary to restore confidence in the management of the trust.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>by Creedon &amp; Gill P.C.</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[Education Scam, Retaliation, Wage Theft, Mold Exposure &#038; Slander: Protecting Employees and Families in New York]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/02/education-scam-retaliation-wage-theft-mold-exposure-slander-protecting-employees-and-families-in-new-york/" />
            <id>https://www.creedongill.com/?p=47698</id>
            <updated>2026-02-25T01:08:52Z</updated>
            <published>2026-02-25T01:08:52Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[Education Scam, Retaliation, Wage Theft, Mold Exposure & Slander: Protecting Employees and Families in New York Creedon & Gill P.C. has been retained by a Plaintiff seeking relief after being victimized by what is alleged to be an education scam, unlawful retaliation for calling out that scam, wage and overtime violations under the New York Labor Law, toxic mold exposure…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/02/education-scam-retaliation-wage-theft-mold-exposure-slander-protecting-employees-and-families-in-new-york/"><![CDATA[Education Scam, Retaliation, Wage Theft, Mold Exposure & Slander: Protecting Employees and Families in New York

Creedon & Gill P.C. has been retained by a Plaintiff seeking relief after being victimized by what is alleged to be an education scam, unlawful retaliation for calling out that scam, wage and overtime violations under the New York Labor Law, toxic mold exposure affecting both employee and child, and slander and defamation designed to destroy professional reputation.

This case highlights several serious areas of New York law, including education fraud, wage theft, unlawful deductions, workplace retaliation, premises liability for mold exposure, and slander per se.

Education Scam and Fraudulent Training Programs

In the pending litigation, the Plaintiff alleges she was required to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for a purported certification and training program that was represented as legitimate, accredited, and necessary for continued employment. The certification was allegedly misrepresented as professionally recognized when it was not accepted by accredited institutions. When private schools or education centers misrepresent accreditation, certification value, or professional legitimacy, those actions may constitute fraud, deceptive practices, and unlawful wage deductions.

If you have been required to pay for “mandatory” training that primarily benefits the employer, misrepresented as accredited, or deducted from your compensation without lawful authorization, you may have legal remedies under New York law.

Wage Theft, Unpaid Overtime, and Unlawful Deductions – New York Labor Law

The lawsuit further alleges unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unlawful deductions, failure to provide wage notices, failure to provide wage statements, and payment practices that violate Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law.

New York employers must pay employees for all hours worked, pay one and one-half times the regular rate for hours over forty in a workweek, refrain from unlawful deductions, provide accurate wage notices at hiring, provide proper wage statements with each pay period, and maintain payroll tax compliance. Cash payments, Zelle transfers, off-the-books compensation, failure to deduct or remit payroll taxes, and requiring employees to subsidize school operations may expose employers to significant statutory penalties, liquidated damages, civil fines, attorneys’ fees, and personal liability for owners and managers.

Retaliation for Reporting Wage Violations and Unsafe Conditions

Under New York Labor Law § 215, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who complain about unpaid wages, overtime violations, unsafe working conditions, or other statutory violations. Termination, demotion, threats, character attacks, public humiliation, or coordinated efforts to damage reputation after an employee raises concerns may constitute unlawful retaliation.

Employees who report wage theft, fraudulent practices, or health and safety violations are protected under New York law. Adverse action taken because an employee spoke up can result in liability for back pay, front pay, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and additional civil fines.

Toxic Mold Exposure in Schools and Workplaces

The complaint also alleges exposure to toxic mold, mildew, bacteria, and airborne contaminants in classrooms where HVAC work was performed without proper ventilation or remediation. Both the employee and her minor child allegedly suffered recurring illness, respiratory symptoms, fatigue, fever, and gastrointestinal distress consistent with mold exposure.

Property owners, school operators, and employers have a duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition, inspect for hazardous environmental conditions, remediate known mold contamination, warn occupants of risks, and avoid exposing children and staff to indoor air contaminants. Failure to test, failure to disclose test results, failure to remediate, and allowing black mold to persist in occupied classrooms may constitute negligence and premises liability under New York law.

Slander and Defamation in the Workplace

The lawsuit further alleges that false statements were made orally and in writing accusing the Plaintiff of misconduct and physical altercations, communicated to parents and third parties, damaging her professional reputation. Under New York law, statements that accuse a person of serious misconduct, criminal behavior, or professional incompetence may constitute slander per se, meaning damages may be presumed without proof of special loss.

Defamation claims often arise in retaliation contexts where an employer attempts to discredit an employee who has exposed wrongdoing. False accusations designed to intimidate, silence, or punish whistleblowers may give rise to substantial liability.

When to Contact a New York Employment and Personal Injury Attorney

You may need immediate legal counsel if you have been required to pay for fraudulent or misrepresented training programs, paid off the books or denied overtime compensation, subjected to unlawful wage deductions, terminated after reporting wage violations or unsafe conditions, exposed to mold or environmental hazards at work or school, publicly accused of misconduct in a manner that damages your career.

Creedon & Gill P.C. represents employees, parents, and families throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and the greater New York area in cases involving wage theft, retaliation, education fraud, mold exposure injuries, and defamation. We pursue unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, personal injury compensation, reputational damages, and punitive damages where appropriate.

Employers and school operators must comply with New York Labor Law, maintain safe premises, avoid deceptive practices, and refrain from retaliatory conduct. When they fail to do so, the law provides powerful remedies.

Creedon & Gill P.C.
Employment Litigation, Personal Injury & Complex Civil Litigation
Northport, New York
(631) 656-9220

If you believe you have been the victim of wage theft, retaliation, education fraud, mold exposure, or defamation in New York, contact our office for a confidential consultation.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>by Creedon &amp; Gill P.C.</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[How to Remove a Trustee in New York: When a Fiduciary Fails to Act in the Beneficiary’s Best Interests]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/02/how-to-remove-a-trustee-in-new-york-when-a-fiduciary-fails-to-act-in-the-beneficiarys-best-interests/" />
            <id>https://www.creedongill.com/?p=47697</id>
            <updated>2026-02-25T00:58:57Z</updated>
            <published>2026-02-25T00:58:57Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[How to Remove a Trustee in New York: When a Fiduciary Fails to Act in the Beneficiary’s Best Interests When a trustee places personal interests ahead of a beneficiary’s well-being, New York law provides a remedy: removal. Creedon & Gill P.C. has recently been retained by a trust beneficiary seeking to remove and replace a trustee under New York Estates,…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/02/how-to-remove-a-trustee-in-new-york-when-a-fiduciary-fails-to-act-in-the-beneficiarys-best-interests/"><![CDATA[How to Remove a Trustee in New York: When a Fiduciary Fails to Act in the Beneficiary’s Best Interests

When a trustee places personal interests ahead of a beneficiary’s well-being, New York law provides a remedy: removal.

Creedon & Gill P.C. has recently been retained by a trust beneficiary seeking to remove and replace a trustee under New York Estates, Powers & Trust Law (EPTL) § 7-2.6. The petition alleges breach of fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, hostility that impedes administration, and mismanagement of trust assets.

Trustee Removal Under New York Law (EPTL § 7-2.6)

Under EPTL § 7-2.6(a)(2) and (a)(3), a court may remove a trustee when the trustee has violated or threatens to violate the trust, is unfit for office, has wasted or improperly applied trust assets, where hostility or conflict of interest interferes with proper administration, or where removal is necessary to protect the interests of beneficiaries.

Common Grounds for Removing a Trustee

A trustee owes a fiduciary duty of loyalty and care, which includes avoiding self-dealing, acting impartially among beneficiaries, preserving and protecting trust assets, making distributions consistent with the trust’s purpose, and acting in good faith. If a trustee manages a trust to maximize their own future inheritance or leverage control over another beneficiary, courts will scrutinize that conduct carefully.

Conflict of interest is particularly concerning where a trustee is also a remainder beneficiary. If a trustee’s financial interest as a beneficiary influences their decisions, particularly when current beneficiaries rely on trust distributions for health, support, and quality of life, that conflict may justify removal.

Hostility that rises to a level detrimental to the execution of the trust and that threatens orderly administration may also warrant removal under New York law.

Trustees must pay expenses timely, safeguard real property, maintain accurate records, determine and implement responsible distribution policies, and ensure liquidity consistent with foreseeable needs. Failure to do so, especially where foreclosure notices, unpaid obligations, or budgetary uncertainty arise, may constitute financial mismanagement.

The Role of the Supreme Court in Trust Disputes

Removal of a trustee of an inter vivos trust is often brought in Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 7701. The Court has broad equitable authority to remove a trustee, appoint a successor trustee, appoint a neutral fiduciary, order accountings, enjoin improper conduct, and preserve trust assets pending litigation.

Can a Beneficiary Replace the Trustee?

A beneficiary seeking removal must establish standing as a current beneficiary, specific misconduct, unfitness, or hostility, and that removal would protect the trust and its beneficiaries.

Protecting Elderly Grantors and Surviving Spouses

Trust litigation frequently intersects with elder law issues where a trust was created using a power of attorney, capacity is disputed, asset transfers occurred during hospitalization, or a surviving spouse relies on trust distributions for care. When trust administration conflicts with a valid health care proxy, guardianship designation, or longstanding financial arrangements, courts examine whether the trust is being used as a tool of control rather than as a vehicle of protection.

When Should You Speak to a Trust Litigation Attorney?

You may need counsel if a trustee refuses reasonable distributions, assets appear mismanaged, you suspect self-dealing, there is extreme hostility interfering with administration, you are being denied access to financial information, real property is at risk, or the trustee is prioritizing remainder beneficiaries over current beneficiaries.

Nassau County & Long Island Trust Litigation Attorneys

Creedon & Gill P.C. represents beneficiaries, trustees, and families in complex trust and fiduciary disputes throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Westchester County, and the New York metropolitan area. We handle petitions to remove a trustee in New York, breach of fiduciary duty claims, trust accounting proceedings, disputes involving irrevocable trusts, litigation under EPTL § 7-2.6, and emergency applications to protect trust assets.

Removing a Trustee in New York: What to Expect

The process typically includes filing a Verified Petition under CPLR 7701, service upon all interested parties, motion practice and potential preliminary relief, discovery including document demands and depositions, possible evidentiary hearing, and court determination on removal and appointment.

Trustees hold extraordinary power, and with that power comes an extraordinary obligation. When that obligation is breached through conflict of interest, hostility, or financial mismanagement, the law provides a path forward.

Creedon & Gill P.C.
Trust Litigation & Fiduciary Disputes
Northport, New York
(631) 656-9220

If you believe a trustee is acting against your interests or against the purpose of the trust, contact our office for a confidential consultation.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>by Creedon &amp; Gill P.C.</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[Creedon &#038; Gill Secures Emergency Court Order to Protect a Mother’s Right to Direct the Disposition of Her Child’s Remains]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/02/creedon-gill-secures-emergency-court-order-to-protect-a-mothers-right-to-direct-the-disposition-of-her-childs-remains/" />
            <id>https://www.creedongill.com/?p=47696</id>
            <updated>2026-02-25T00:50:50Z</updated>
            <published>2026-02-25T00:50:50Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[Creedon & Gill Secures Emergency Court Order to Protect a Mother’s Right to Direct the Disposition of Her Child’s Remains At Creedon & Gill, some matters are about business. Others are about dignity. We were recently retained on an emergency basis to represent a grieving mother seeking immediate judicial intervention to authorize the cremation of her minor daughter and to…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/02/creedon-gill-secures-emergency-court-order-to-protect-a-mothers-right-to-direct-the-disposition-of-her-childs-remains/"><![CDATA[Creedon & Gill Secures Emergency Court Order to Protect a Mother’s Right to Direct the Disposition of Her Child’s Remains

At Creedon & Gill, some matters are about business. Others are about dignity.

We were recently retained on an emergency basis to represent a grieving mother seeking immediate judicial intervention to authorize the cremation of her minor daughter and to designate her as the person with priority to direct the disposition of her child’s remains under New York Public Health Law § 4201.

The situation required swift, careful, and compassionate legal action. The Court granted our application.

Under New York Public Health Law § 4201(2)(a), certain family members have priority in determining the disposition of a decedent’s remains. When surviving parents disagree, funeral homes cannot proceed without clear authorization. In such cases, a court order is often required to designate the person with decision-making authority.

In this matter, the child’s remains were being held without disposition because the surviving parents could not agree on the cremation process and related arrangements. As days passed, the emotional toll intensified.

Our client sought Immediate authorization for cremation,   Judicial designation as the person with priority under Public Health Law § 4201 and Authority to direct the ultimate disposition of the ashes.

We prepared and filed an emergency Order to Show Cause in Supreme Court, supported by a detailed affirmation establishing our client’s status as the child’s primary residential custodial parent, her longstanding authority over medical, religious, and educational decisions, her role as the daily caregiver throughout the child’s illness, the need to prevent further delay in the dignified handling of the child’s remains.

Following expedited proceedings, the Court issued a Decision & Order granting the petition.
The Court authorized the immediate cremation of the child’s remains pursuant to Public Health Law § 4201(2)(a), designated our client as the person authorized to direct the disposition of the remains, established a structured framework for memorial services and temporary possession for ceremonial purposes and prohibited disturbance or division of the remains absent court authorization.

Importantly, the resolution preserved the dignity of the child while creating an orderly structure for remembrance that reduced the risk of further conflict.

Disputes under Public Health Law § 4201 are rarely about technical legal rights alone. They occur at moments of profound grief. Emotions run high. Family dynamics are often complicated.

In this case, our objective was not only to secure judicial relief, but to prevent further delay in laying the child to rest, provide her spirit with the best chance to move on in peace,  ensure that religious and personal beliefs were respected, minimize additional trauma to a grieving parents and reduce the risk of escalating litigation between family members.


Funeral homes cannot act without proper statutory authorization. When consent is withheld or conditioned, remains may be held indefinitely pending court direction. That delay compounds emotional distress and can create logistical and financial complications.

Emergency applications under Public Health Law § 4201 require immediate factual development, clear documentary support, precise statutory analysis, sensitivity in presentation, and effective courtroom advocacy under time pressure.

A Commitment to Dignity

At Creedon & Gill, we approach matters involving the disposition of remains with the seriousness they deserve. These are not ordinary disputes. They sit at the intersection of family law, equity, statutory interpretation, and human grief.

In this matter, we are proud to have secured an order that authorized prompt cremation, clarified legal priority, protected the integrity of the remains, provided a structured path forward for remembrance, and preserved dignity at a time of loss.

If you are facing a dispute concerning the disposition of a loved one’s remains, custodial priority, or emergency court intervention under Public Health Law § 4201, Creedon & Gill is prepared to act swiftly and decisively.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>by Creedon &amp; Gill P.C.</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[Sibling ordered out of Estate residence.]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/01/sibling-ordered-out-of-estate-residence/" />
            <id>https://www.creedongill.com/?p=47695</id>
            <updated>2026-01-12T20:51:29Z</updated>
            <published>2026-01-12T20:51:29Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[One of the most common kinds of Estate case involves situations where the last parent dies and an adult child who has been living in the house and won’t get out. Typically the Will provides that the house be sold, and the proceeds split among all the children, but the one sibling will not go along and get out. Sometimes…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/01/sibling-ordered-out-of-estate-residence/"><![CDATA[One of the most common kinds of Estate case involves situations  where the last parent dies and an adult child who has been living in the house and won't get out. Typically the  Will provides that the house be sold, and the proceeds split among all the children, but the one sibling will not go along and get out. Sometimes the situation is compounded by the sibling having children of their own also living with them, or the sibling having physical or mental disabilities. But often it is just a matter of the sibling just not wanting to do the right thing for selfish reasons. They are really nothing more than a squatter. 

Getting a squatter out can require Court proceedings,usually in Surrogate's Court, which are difficult and contentious. Creedon & Gill has expertise in these kinds of cases, which can be even more difficult if the house is held in Trust and the squatter is  a Trustee of the Trust. 

This month Creedon & Gill was successful in obtaining an Order from the Surrogate of Nassau County ordering an adult child, who had turned herself into a squatter, out of a house. The squatter was also removed as a Trustee of the Trust that held the house. Our received a Judgement of Possession and Warrant of Eviction for use by the Sheriff if it comes to that.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>by Creedon &amp; Gill P.C.</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[Trial Counsel in  Iron worker case results in 2.5 M recovery,]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/01/trial-counsel-in-iron-worker-case-results-in-2-5-m-recovery/" />
            <id>https://www.creedongill.com/?p=47694</id>
            <updated>2026-01-12T20:36:03Z</updated>
            <published>2026-01-12T20:36:03Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[Creedon & Gill partner Peter J. Creedon was asked to join a prominent New York City trial firm in an Iron Worker trial in Suffolk County. The request was made because of this firms powerful reputation with the judges on Long Island for their excellence, a reputation forged over 30 years. The decision to bring in Creedon & Gill paid…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2026/01/trial-counsel-in-iron-worker-case-results-in-2-5-m-recovery/"><![CDATA[Creedon & Gill partner Peter J. Creedon was asked to join a prominent New York City trial firm in an Iron Worker trial in Suffolk County. The request was made because of this firms powerful reputation with the judges on Long Island for their excellence, a reputation forged over 30 years. The decision to bring in Creedon & Gill paid off in this very difficult case involving an Iron Worker injured in a fall on black ice at a construction cite. New York Labor Law Section 200, which codifies an owner's common law duty to maintain a safe place to work. After Mr. Creedon spent a week picking a jury along with the other attorneys, the Judge who was assigned turned to Mr. Creedon to give an honest appraisal of the what the merits of the case were, and the matter settled on those terms for some 2.5 million dollars.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>by petercreedon</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[Constitutional challenge against the legislature goes forward..]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2025/08/constitutional-challenge-to-legislative-action-goes-forward/" />
            <id>https://www.creedongill.com/?p=47693</id>
            <updated>2025-08-10T02:56:17Z</updated>
            <published>2025-08-10T02:55:01Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[Creedon & Gill obtained a landmark ruling in August of 2025 when the Hon. J. Tinari authorized their case against the State of New York to go forward. Creedon & Gill had been hired to challenge a law which would ban New York pet stores from selling puppies or kittens (or even rabbits!) forcing consumers to turn to the shelter…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2025/08/constitutional-challenge-to-legislative-action-goes-forward/"><![CDATA[Creedon & Gill obtained a landmark ruling in August of 2025 when the Hon. J. Tinari authorized their case against the State of New York to go forward. Creedon & Gill had been hired to challenge a law which would ban New York pet stores from selling puppies or kittens (or even rabbits!) forcing consumers to turn to the shelter systems, overwhelmingly stocked with pit bulls, or gamble with unknown and shady internet providers. Creedon & Gill convinced the Court that there was sufficient preliminary evidence  that the supposed purpose of this law, to ban "puppy mills", was just a sham - that in fact no sick animals were being sold or imported into New York. The question of whether real aim of this law was to advance a political agenda and put private dollars in public coffers will be heard now. It is "vanish-ling rare" to obtain this kind of result.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>by Creedon &amp; Gill P.C.</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[5.5 million dollars in settlements in a deadly car crash]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2025/08/5-5-million-dollars-in-settlement-in-a-deadly-car-crash/" />
            <id>https://www.creedongill.com/?p=47692</id>
            <updated>2025-08-10T02:55:34Z</updated>
            <published>2025-08-10T02:44:50Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[Creedon & Gill was instrumental in obtaining 5.5 million dollars in settlements for their clients and an additional plaintiffs counsel in connection with a deadly car accident that occurred in Westchester County.]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2025/08/5-5-million-dollars-in-settlement-in-a-deadly-car-crash/"><![CDATA[Creedon & Gill was instrumental in obtaining 5.5 million dollars in settlements for their clients and an additional plaintiffs counsel in connection with a deadly car accident that occurred in Westchester County.]]></content>
						        </entry>
	        <entry>
            <author>
									                    <name>by Creedon &amp; Gill P.C.</name>
				            </author>
            <title type="html"><![CDATA[Injunction.  Allegations of bad faith and coercion against State Farm]]></title>
            <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2025/06/injunction-allegations-of-bad-faith-and-coercion-against-state-farm/" />
            <id>https://www.creedongill.com/?p=47690</id>
            <updated>2025-06-30T22:01:57Z</updated>
            <published>2025-06-30T22:01:57Z</published>
					<taxo:topics><![CDATA[-]]></taxo:topics>
            <summary type="html"><![CDATA[Creedon & Gill partner Peter J. Creedon obtained an injunction in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County today which prevents a State Farm referred remediation-company from attempting to enforce a judgment and garnish the wages of a State Farm homeowner. It was alleged Creedon & Gill’s Order to Show Cause that State Farm low balled its insured while adjusting a…]]></summary>
			                <content type="html" xml:base="https://www.creedongill.com/blog/2025/06/injunction-allegations-of-bad-faith-and-coercion-against-state-farm/"><![CDATA[Creedon & Gill partner Peter J. Creedon obtained an injunction in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County today which prevents a State Farm referred remediation-company from attempting to enforce a judgment  and garnish the wages of a State Farm homeowner. 

It was alleged Creedon & Gill's Order to Show Cause that  State Farm low balled its insured while  adjusting a claim for a flood in the insured's home, negotiated in bad faith, hid behind a no good "Xactimate" estimate, dragged its feet, then coerced the insured  into accepting the low ball offer by cutting off his temporary housing accomodations. As a result the insured was left with too little money to both pay the remediation company and a renovation contractor. 

When the money went to the renovation contractor so the home could be made livable, the remediation contractor went unpaid, obtained a judgment and sought to garish the homeowner's wages.  

Creedon & Gill argued that it is State Farm who should be paying the judgment. That their acts  amounted to a violation of the covenant of good faith that exists in all insurance contracts. 

Notably State Farm has recently been called out for exactly the same behavior in Federal Court in the matter of Zicherman v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (U.S.D.C., E.D. New York 2023) 698 F.Supp.3d 564. As the Zicherman court wrote, "[N]ew York courts have repeatedly allowed claims for punitive damages to go forward based on a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing."]]></content>
						        </entry>
	</feed>