You are here: / / Relatives of Persons Buried in Defendant Cemetery Could Not Sue As Beneficiaries...

Relatives of Persons Buried in Defendant Cemetery Could Not Sue As Beneficiaries of the Charitable Trust Set Up to Ensure Perpetual Care of the Cemetery Plots

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department determined that the relatives of persons buried in defendant cemetery did not have standing to sue as beneficiaries of a charitable trust which was supposed to ensure perpetual care of the cemetery plots.  [However, one of the plaintiffs, who himself was a donor to the charitable trust, did have standing to sue:

EPTL article 1, which governs charitable trusts, specifically includes trusts for the perpetual care of graves: “Dispositions of property in trust for the purpose of the perpetual care … of cemeteries or private burial lots in cemeteries … shall be deemed to be for charitable and benevolent purposes” (EPTL 8-1.5). The statute directs the State Attorney General to protect and enforce the interests and rights of the beneficiaries: “The attorney general shall represent the beneficiaries of such dispositions for religious, charitable, educational or benevolent purposes and it shall be his duty to enforce the rights of such beneficiaries by appropriate proceedings in the courts” (EPTL § 8-1.1[f] [emphasis added]). “The obvious purpose of this provision was to provide a mechanism for enforcement of trusts whose beneficiaries were unascertainable” … . * * *

… [A]llowing relatives to bring lawsuits as to each lot, plot or grave could create endless litigation, substantially depleting the trust assets. Enforcement of the subject charitable trusts is therefore best left to the Attorney General, so as not to expose the trust funds to money-draining multiple lawsuits, and to avoid setting a precedent of allowing a broad, vague beneficiary base to commence multiple actions against a charitable trust. Lucker v Bayside Cemetary, 2013 NY Slip Op 08835, 1st Dept 12-31-13

 

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED SOLELY ON THE IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE EIGHT-YEAR-OLD CHILD IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY CASE, MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
Even Though the People Indicated They Were Not Ready for Trial After Filing a Certificate of Readiness, the Presumption the Statement of Readiness Was Accurate and Truthful When Made Was Not Rebutted/How to Interpret a Plurality Opinion by the Court of Appeals Explained
Supreme Court Erred When It Ruled Plaintiff Had “Defaulted” on Its Summary Judgment Motion by Failing to Appear for Oral Argument
PHOTOS SUBMITTED AS A NOTICE TO ADMIT DID NOT SHOW THE METAL OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL; ALTHOUGH THE PHOTOS ARE DEEMED TO SHOW THE PROJECT SITE ON THE DAY OF THE FALL, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE PHOTOS DEPICTED THE CONDITION OF THE SITE AT THE TIME OF THE FALL OR IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE FALL (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PASSENGER SUED THE DRIVER WHO STRUCK A CAR FROM BEHIND; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE DRIVER FAILED TO MAINTAIN A SAFE DISTANCE IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FIRST DEPT).
THAT THE LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE DID NOT MATTER, THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LADDER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY SECURED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTY IS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTIONS EXPLAINED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
AFFIDAVIT WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK’S ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNDER THE CONTROLLING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Growling and Baring Teeth Insufficient to Raise Question of Fact About a Dog’s... Showup Identification of the Hand-Cuffed Defendant Made in the Police Station...