You are here: / / AFTER FATHER’S DEATH, SON COULD NOT SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER ...
,

AFTER FATHER’S DEATH, SON COULD NOT SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER AND SUE MOTHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED UPON MOTHER AND FATHER’S AGREEMENT NOT TO MODIFY OR REVOKE THEIR WILLS WITHOUT THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PARTIES.

The Second Department determined plaintiff-son’s complaint seeking an injunction prohibiting his mother (defendant) from transferring any property mother inherited from father (Vitus) was properly dismissed. Mother and father, by contract, agreed not to modify or revoke their wills without the “mutual written consent of the parties.” The court found there was no contractual impediment to mother’s transferring (the inherited) property after father’s death and plaintiff could not maintain a breach of contract action during defendant’s lifetime:

​

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, there is nothing in the unambiguous language of the agreement which prevents the defendant from making inter vivos gifts or transfers of assets she inherited from Vitus’s residuary estate … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), directed dismissal of the causes of action for injunctive relief and breach of contract to the extent that they are based on any past and future inter vivos transfers of any property inherited by the defendant from Vitus’s residuary estate.

Accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see CPLR 3211[a][7] …), the Supreme Court correctly directed the dismissal of the complaint to the extent that it sought to enjoin the defendant from breaching the agreement by revoking or modifying her will or executing a new will. During the defendant’s lifetime, the plaintiff is precluded from maintaining an action predicated upon a breach of the agreement as it relates to the defendant’s promise not to revoke or modify her will or execute a new will … . Tretter v Tretter, 2017 NY Slip Op 03982, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (AFTER FATHER’S DEATH, SON COULD NOT SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER AND SUE MOTHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED UPON MOTHER AND FATHER’S AGREEMENT NOT TO MODIFY OR REVOKE THEIR WILLS WITHOUT THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PARTIES)/CONTRACT LAW (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, AFTER FATHER’S DEATH, SON COULD NOT SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER AND SUE MOTHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED UPON MOTHER AND FATHER’S AGREEMENT NOT TO MODIFY OR REVOKE THEIR WILLS WITHOUT THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PARTIES)

You might also like
REFEREE’S FINDINGS WERE BASED UPON HEARSAY PROVIDED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S FINGER WAS CAUGHT IN A DOOR SHUT BY ANOTHER STUDENT ACTING AS A LUNCH MONITOR; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SCHOOL PROVIDED ADEQUATE SUPERVISION (SECOND DEPT).
Owner of Land through Which Power Lines Pass Pursuant to a Utility Easement (Servient Owner) Does Not Have a Duty to Maintain the Easement—Servient Owner Not Liable for Damage to Abutting Property Stemming from a Vegetation Fire Started by Sparks from the Power Lines
IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF BEER DISTRIBUTORS AND DEFENDANT BEER COMPANY, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT SECTION 55-C(4), WHICH PROHIBITS TERMINATION OF A DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, APPLIES TO BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL CONTRACTS; THE COURT WENT ON TO FIND THAT THE COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS BASED ON AN ORAL DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF SECTION 55-C(4) (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Hold a Hearing on Mother’s Petition for Custody and Failure to Inform Father of Right to Counsel Required Reversal of Custody Determination
FATHER, AS THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT PROVIDING MOST OF THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE CHILDREN, WAS ENTITLED TO DECLARE THE CHILDREN DEPENDENTS FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT’S CLOTHES BY A DETECTIVE AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE DEFENDANT WAS BEING TREATED FOR A GUNSHOT WOUND; THE CLOTHES AND THE DNA EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CLOTHES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Derivative Neglect Finding Explained (Evidence Insufficient)

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

MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION... WATER DISTRICT’S CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY TANK...