You are here: / / Trustee Was Not Negligent In Its Management of Three Trusts; Surrogate’s...

Trustee Was Not Negligent In Its Management of Three Trusts; Surrogate’s Court’s Findings Reversed

Reversing Surrogate’s Court, the Fourth Department determined the trustee of three trusts initially funded by Kodak stock was not negligent in its management of the trusts. The Fourth Department analyzed each trust using the relevant investment standards:

We conclude that the Surrogate erred in sustaining the objections to the three accounts because objectants failed to sustain their burden of proving that petitioner failed to diversify the trusts prudently within a reasonable time, and also failed to establish a reasonable date from which a surcharge could be calculated. As we explained in Knox (98 AD3d at 308-309), petitioner was subject to three separate standards of care as trustee: “[f]rom [1966] until 1970, the standard was the common-law rule, which provided that the trustee is bound to employ such diligence and such prudence in the care and management, as in general, prudent [persons] of discretion and intelligence in such matters, employ in their own like affairs’ . . . From 1970 to 1995, the standard of care was the prudent person rule established in EPTL 11-2.2 (a) (1), which provided that [a] fiduciary holding funds for investment may invest the same in such securities as would be acquired by prudent [persons] of discretion and intelligence in such matters who are seeking a reasonable income and preservation of their capital’ . . . Effective, January 1, 1995, the Prudent Investor Act (EPTL 11-2.3 [L 1994, ch 609, § 1]) created a new standard of care by providing that [a] trustee shall exercise reasonable care, skill and caution to make and implement investment and management decisions as a prudent investor would for the entire portfolio, taking into account the purposes and terms and provisions of the governing instrument’ (EPTL 11-2.3 [b] [2]). The statute lists various elements of the prudent investor standard, including: pursuing an overall investment strategy; considering numerous factors pertaining to the overall portfolio including, e.g., general economic conditions; and diversifying assets (see EPTL 11-2.3 [b] [3] [A]-[C]).” Notably, the “Prudent Investor Act requires a trustee to diversify assets unless the trustee reasonably determines that it is in the interests of the beneficiaries not to diversify’ ” (Janes, 90 NY2d at 49 n, quoting EPTL 11-2.3 [b] [3] [C]; see Knox, 98 AD3d at 310). Matter of Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2015 NY Slip Op 08533, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A SNOWMAKING MACHINE.
2 ½ Inch Drop in Pavement Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Loss of Control of Her Vehicle
QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED WHETHER DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS WERE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY MALICE, THEREBY OVERCOMING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, AND WERE MADE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, THEREBY RENDERING THE EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE.
IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED QUICKLY IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC IS NOT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF A REAR-END COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT).
ALL STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT AFTER HE RESPONDED “NO SIR.” WHEN ASKED IF HE WAS WILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
PRIVATE MESSAGES SENT BY THE JUVENILE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A “TERRORISTIC THREAT” (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Carrier’s Waiver of Lien on Third-Party Settlement Is Not “Compensation”... MOTION TO DISMISS BREACH OF WARRANTY ACTION PROPERLY DENIED; THE WARRANTY CONCERNED...