In re to Declare the Death of Lafuente
2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 655, 743 N.Y.S.2d 678, 191 Misc.2d 577 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under EPTL 2-1.7 (b), a court may determine that a person died at any time after being exposed to a specific peril of death, even if less than three years have passed since their absence commenced, provided there is clear and convincing circumstantial evidence of their presence in the place of peril.
Facts:
- Juan M. Lafuente ('the absentee') and Colette Lafuente were married on June 20, 1964, and had four adult daughters.
- Juan was employed by Citibank in New York City, routinely commuting via train and subway, typically exiting near the Broadway and Wall Street stop, which is close to the World Trade Center (WTC).
- On September 8th or 9th, 2001, Juan was overheard stating he planned to attend a meeting at the World Trade Center the following week.
- On the morning of September 11, 2001, Juan used his Metro Card at 8:06 a.m. for the No. 4 subway from Grand Central to Broadway and Wall Street, a ride that typically takes about 16 minutes.
- On September 11, 2001, the Risk Waters Financial Technology Congress, a firm Juan had previously done business with, was holding a trade show on the 106th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center, and walk-ins were permitted.
- At 8:48 a.m. on September 11, 2001, a hijacked airliner struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center, and a second plane struck the South Tower at 9:18 a.m., leading to the collapse of both towers and thousands of fatalities.
- Juan has not been seen or heard from by his family, friends, or coworkers since September 11, 2001, despite extensive search efforts by family and police.
- Juan maintained a stable personal and financial life, with no evidence of marital or job difficulties, nor any unusual financial activity before or after September 11th.
Procedural Posture:
- Colette Lafuente, Juan M. Lafuente's wife, filed a petition in Surrogate's Court, pursuant to EPTL 2-1.7 (b), seeking a decree (1) declaring Juan M. Lafuente died on September 11, 2001, and (2) permitting her to file a probate proceeding for his will, dated June 30, 2000.
- A hearing was conducted in the Surrogate's Court where testimony was received from Colette Lafuente, their adult child Catherine Lafuente, an acquaintance Barry Horowitz, and Detective Walter Horton, along with documentary evidence.
- Juan M. Lafuente's four adult daughters executed waivers of process and consented to the relief requested in the petition, including the probate of their father’s will.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the evidence demonstrate that Juan M. Lafuente was exposed to a specific peril of death, as required by EPTL 2-1.7 (b), to sustain a finding that he died less than three years after his absence commenced?
Opinions:
Majority - James D. Pagones, J.
Yes, the evidence demonstrates that Juan M. Lafuente was exposed to a specific peril of death on September 11, 2001, warranting a finding that he died on that date, less than three years after his absence commenced. The court found that the totality of circumstantial evidence reliably placed Juan in the immediate vicinity of the World Trade Center, and most likely within the North Tower, at the time of the terrorist attacks. His Metro Card usage indicated his arrival near the WTC subway stop at approximately 8:22 a.m., allowing sufficient time to reach the North Tower before it was struck at 8:48 a.m. Testimony regarding his stated intent to attend a WTC meeting that week, coupled with his history of attending trade shows (like the one occurring in the North Tower that morning) and his frugal nature, supported his likely presence. Furthermore, his stable personal and financial life, and the absence of any indication of voluntary disappearance, rendered absconding 'illogical.' The court determined that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks constituted an 'unprecedented' and 'specific peril of death' under EPTL 2-1.7 (b), which permits a finding of death at any time after such exposure. Given the diligent search efforts and the lack of any alternative explanation for his disappearance, the court concluded that there was no reasonable explanation for his absence other than death by an act of terrorism.
Analysis:
This case serves as a poignant application of EPTL 2-1.7 (b) in the context of mass casualty events, establishing a precedent for adjudicating presumptions of death in extraordinary circumstances. It clarifies that strong circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of a body or direct eyewitness testimony, can be sufficient to prove exposure to a 'specific peril of death' and declare a missing person deceased much sooner than the general three-year statutory presumption. The ruling demonstrates the judiciary's capacity to adapt existing legal frameworks to unprecedented tragedies, recognizing the unique challenges of proving death when conventional evidence is destroyed. This case guides how courts can handle similar situations where individuals vanish in major disasters, emphasizing the weight given to location proximity, consistent behavioral patterns, and the conclusive lack of alternative explanations for disappearance.
