Jo Ann Paganette has filed a lawsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court against Dr. Ann Marie Egloff, a Boston-based oncologist, alleging that Egloff deceitfully influenced her to alter her will while suffering from dementia.
In a disquieting legal wrangle, Dr. Egloff is accused of isolating Paganette to gain control over a valuable New York City apartment, Mail Online reported.
Jo Ann Paganette, who had a storied career as a Fashion Institute of Technology professor and fashion editor, passed away on April 30 at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. She was 85 years old and had battled dementia since suffering a stroke six years prior.
Her daughter, Georgia Lee Sarah Andrews, expected to inherit a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan's prestigious Upper East Side. However, Andrews was astounded to learn that the will's beneficiary had changed to favor Dr. Egloff, a revelation that set the groundwork for the ensuing legal dispute.
Dr. Egloff, who practices oncology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, confirmed her familial ties with Paganette through DNA tests and shared maiden names.
As the legal representative of Paganette's interests toward the end of her life, Dr. Egloff reportedly facilitated a change in the will that listed Paganette's apartment, valued at $749,000 and located at 152 East 94th Street, for sale. This move sparked considerable controversy and prompted Andrews to file a lawsuit to block the sale.
According to court documents, medical professionals objected, questioning Paganette's capacity to sign any legal documents due to the effects of her medication.
Adding to the complexity of the situation, it was revealed that shortly before Paganette’s death, someone transferred her co-op shares into a trust, an action orchestrated amid contentious circumstances.
Andrews, who Paganette had given up for adoption in 1966, reconnected with her mother years later and was initially named a beneficiary in Paganette’s 1986 will. Their reunion now forms the backdrop to a bitter inheritance dispute.
Further complicating matters, Dr. Egloff disputed Andrews' biological relation to Paganette after Paganette's death, a claim that DNA testing later confirmed unequivocally.
The lawsuit targets not only Dr. Egloff but also AKAM, the property management company that handled the controversial transfer of the co-op shares into the trust.
Dr. Egloff's professional stature contrasts sharply with the backdrop of the legal allegations. Descriptions of her professional demeanor by some of her students highlight a personality that some found difficult and condescending; however, these traits bear no direct relation to the legal proceedings.
Furthermore, accusations from her professional sphere, as detailed in student reviews at Brigham and Women's Hospital, describe her as "condescending and rude," with a teaching style characterized by a lack of clarity and organization.
It remains to be seen how these public perceptions will, in turn, play into the ongoing legal battles and whether they might ultimately influence the proceedings or the public’s perception of the controversy.
The court case highlights significant concerns about ethical conduct and the protection of individuals with diminished capacity.
Meanwhile, while the legal dispute unfolds, the core of this grievance remains deeply personal, rooted in a family's complicated history and the vulnerabilities associated with aging and health.
As the lawsuit progresses, therefore, all eyes will be on how justice will interpret the tangled web of familial loyalty, legal boundaries, and moral questioning surrounding the last wishes of Jo Ann Paganette.
