You are here: / / RELEASE SIGNED BY ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WILL, RELEASING THE EXECUTOR...

RELEASE SIGNED BY ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WILL, RELEASING THE EXECUTOR FROM LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE BENEFICIARY WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES IN THE ESTATE, AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAVING A TRUST UNFUNDED, SURROGATE’S COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE RELEASE WAS INVALID ON THE BENEFICIARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that a release drawn up by the initial executor, who died, was not valid because the objectant, a beneficiary of the will who signed the release, was not informed that the value of the securities in the estate had declined significantly and was not informed of the ramifications of the executor’s decision to leave a trust unfunded. Surrogate’s Court had erroneously placed the burden of demonstrating the release was invalid on the objectant:

​

… [T]he Surrogate improperly shifted the burden from petitioners to objectant to prove that the release was fraudulently obtained and erred in determining that the release is valid. With releases, “as in other instances of dealing between a fiduciary and the person for whom he [or she] is acting, there must be proof of full disclosure by the [executor] of the facts of the situation and the legal rights of the beneficiary” … . A release should be subject to careful scrutiny, and the executor must affirmatively demonstrate full disclosure of “material facts which he [or she] knew or should have known” … . “The mere absence of misrepresentation, fraud, or undue influence in the obtaining of a release is not sufficient to insulate the release from a subsequent attack by the beneficiaries; the fiduciary must affirmatively demonstrate that the beneficiaries were made aware of the nature and legal effect of the transaction in all its particulars” … . Here, petitioners’ burden of proving that full disclosure was provided was improperly shifted to objectant, i.e., the beneficiary who challenged the validity of the release.

​

Decedent’s will contemplated equal bequests to objectant and his sister (decedent’s children). There was a substantial discrepancy in the value of the properties decedent left to each child, however, and most of objectant’s inheritance was to come from the liquidation of the estate’s securities. The will also directed that the trust be funded in the maximum sum allowable to benefit decedent’s children and their descendants. Objectant and the executor were named as co-trustees of the trust. Accurate information concerning the current value of the estate’s securities and the propriety of defunding the trust in contravention of the will was therefore highly material to objectant. Matter of Alford, 2018 NY Slip Op 00752, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

 

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (RELEASE SIGNED BY ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WILL, RELEASING THE EXECUTOR FROM LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE BENEFICIARY WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES IN THE ESTATE, AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAVING A TRUST UNFUNDED, SURROGATE’S COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE RELEASE WAS INVALID ON THE BENEFICIARY (FOURTH DEPT))/RELEASES (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, RELEASE SIGNED BY ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WILL, RELEASING THE EXECUTOR FROM LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE BENEFICIARY WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES IN THE ESTATE, AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAVING A TRUST UNFUNDED, SURROGATE’S COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE RELEASE WAS INVALID ON THE BENEFICIARY (FOURTH DEPT))/EXECUTORS (RELEASE SIGNED BY ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WILL, RELEASING THE EXECUTOR FROM LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE BENEFICIARY WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES IN THE ESTATE, AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAVING A TRUST UNFUNDED, SURROGATE’S COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE RELEASE WAS INVALID ON THE BENEFICIARY (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED; JUDGE FAILED TO ELICIT UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCES OF IMPARTIALITY FROM FIVE PROSPECTIVE JURORS; NOTHING CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS’ COLLECTIVE SILENCE IN RESPONSE TO THE JUDGE’S QUESTION WHETHER THEY COULD BE FAIR.
In Proceedings Seeking the Reduction of Tax Assessments, Court Should Not Have Ordered the Inspection of the Interior of the Homes—The Assessor Did Not Demonstrate Interior Inspections Were Necessary for the Defense and Did Not Demonstrate the Need for the Inspections Outweighed the Homeowners’ Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
STATEMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH A HOSPITAL’S QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO THE EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW; THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
TWO ATTACKS MINUTES APART CONSTITUTED A SINGLE EVENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR WAS AN ILLEGAL STRIP SEARCH.
THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME AND PLACE OF THE OFFENSES, THIS IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR, PLEA TO THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REDUCED FROM 12 TO FIVE YEARS BASED UPON THE PLEA OFFERS, THE LACK OF PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS, DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, AND THE VICTIMS’ OPPOSITION TO INCARCERATION (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE... QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS...