You are here: / / BENEFICIARIES OF TRUST ENTITLED TO EXAMINE TRUSTEE ABOUT MATTERS RELATING...

BENEFICIARIES OF TRUST ENTITLED TO EXAMINE TRUSTEE ABOUT MATTERS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST, BUT NOT APPOINTMENT OF THE TRUSTEE.

The Second Department determined the trust beneficiaries were entitled to examine the trustee about matters relating to administration of the trust but not matters related to his appointment as trustee:

SCPA 2211(2) provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he fiduciary may be examined under oath by any party to the proceeding either before or after filing objections, if any, to the account, as to any matter relating to his or her administration of the estate.” The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the trustee’s motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 vacating a notice of deposition served upon him by the trust’s beneficiaries … to the extent of vacating so much of the notice of deposition as sought to examine him as to “the manner in which he and Donald J. Farinacci became or were nominated as successor trustees and Donald J. Farinacci renounced such appointment,” as those issues exceeded the scope of SCPA 2211(2) … . However, under SCPA 2211(2), the trust beneficiaries were entitled to examine the trustee under oath “as to any matter relating to his or her administration of the estate.” Accordingly, the court erred in vacating the entirety of the notice of deposition … . Matter of Jane D. Ritter Revocable Living Trust., 2017 NY Slip Op 00647, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (BENEFICIARIES OF TRUST ENTITLED TO EXAMINE TRUSTEE ABOUT MATTERS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST, BUT NOT APPOINTMENT OF THE TRUSTEE)/SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (BENEFICIARIES OF TRUST ENTITLED TO EXAMINE TRUSTEE ABOUT MATTERS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST, BUT NOT APPOINTMENT OF THE TRUSTEE)

You might also like
A DEFENDANT WHO PLEADS GUILTY FORFEITS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION; HERE, BECAUSE THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY TOLD DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPEAL, THE DEFENDANT MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
AN ARBITRATOR’S DETERMINATION WILL NOT BE REVERSED BECAUSE OF AN ERROR OF LAW, BUT WILL BE REVERSED WHERE, AS HERE, IT IS IRRATIONAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS RELIED ON A STATEMENT TRANSLATED FROM SPANISH ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF BUT FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSLATION WAS PROVIDED BY A COMPETENT, OBJECTIVE INTERPRETER WHOSE TRANSLATION WAS ACCURATE; THEREFORE THE STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WERE TWO STEPS LEADING TO A LANDING AT DEFENDANT’S FRONT DOOR; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER FALL; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “SINGLE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
Unduly Suggestive Line-Up Required a New Trial
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE DECLARED A MISTRIAL AFTER THE JURY’S REPEATED COMMUNICATIONS EXPLAINING THEY COULD NOT REACH A UNANIMOUS VERDICT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Criminal Judgment May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in Derivative Neglect Proceedings—Summary Judgment Appropriate in Derivative Neglect Proceedings—Out-of-Court Statements of Siblings Cross-Corroborated One Another

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

WHERE AN EMPLOYEE ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ABSENT A VALID CLAIM... HEATING AGREEMENT WAS A COVENANT WHICH RUNS WITH THE LAND, ORAL WAIVER MAY BE...