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
A WHEEL CAME OFF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK CAUSING A FREAK ACCIDENT INVOLVING TWO OTHER VEHICLES RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF A DRIVER; THE CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; AT MOST, DEFENDANT FAILED TO PERCEIVE THE RISK CREATED BY A NOISY WHEEL (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD THAT DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY JUSTIFYING PURSUIT IN THIS STREET STOP SCENARIO; THE DISSENT ARGUED FLIGHT ALONE DURING A LEVEL TWO ENCOUNTER DOES NOT JUSTIFY PURSUIT (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).
FIREFIGHTER WAS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELAY IN HOLDING HIS DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO BACK PAY FOR THE PRE-HEARING PERIOD OF SUSPENSION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE ARM-WRESTLED WITH PLAINTIFF; THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED INJURY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
RELEASE DID NOT ENCOMPASS A BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF.
STONE WALL ABUTTING A SIDEWALK IS NOT A FEATURE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SIDEWALK, THE SPECIAL USE DOCTRINE THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY, HERE THE WALL OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S VIEW AND PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR BACKING ACROSS THE SIDEWALK, PROPERTY OWNER OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF.

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

Extraordinary Circumstances Warranted Award of Custody to Non-Parent MOTION TO DISMISS BREACH OF WARRANTY ACTION PROPERLY DENIED; THE WARRANTY CONCERNED...