You are here: / / THE NONDOMICILIARY DID NOT HAVE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK; NEW YORK...
, ,

THE NONDOMICILIARY DID NOT HAVE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK; NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THIS TRUST LITIGATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over this trust litigation:

In the petition, the settlor and beneficiary of the trust (decedent) sought an accounting and removal of respondent, a Virginia resident, as trustee. The trust was created in 1996 in New Jersey. At the time the trust was created, decedent was a resident of Illinois and respondent was a resident of Georgia. Respondent administered the trust from Georgia until he relocated to Virginia, and he administered the trust from Virginia thereafter. Decedent relocated to New York in 2016. Solely as a consequence of decedent’s choice of residence, respondent sent to New York occasional trust-related correspondence, including “five or six” checks disbursing trust assets.

… “Due process requires that a nondomiciliary have ‘certain minimum contacts’ with the forum and ‘that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ ” … A nondomiciliary has minimum contacts with New York if he or she “purposefully avails” himself or herself of “the privilege of conducting activities within” New York … . thereby ” ‘invoking the benefits and protections’ ” of New York’s laws … . Our focus is on ” ‘the relationship among the [respondent], the forum, and the litigation’ “… . We conclude that respondent lacks the requisite minimum contacts with the New York forum. He does not live, own property, or conduct business in New York. The first and only relationship that New York had to the subject trust was 20 years after its creation, when decedent became domiciled in New York and respondent disbursed trust assets to her in New York … . Matter of Murad Irrevocable Trust, 2021 NY Slip Op 04823, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO THE COURT’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTIONS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT OF THE OFFENSE ON TRIAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JURY THEIR JOB WAS TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH THEREBY DIMINISHING THE PEOPLE’S BURDEN OF PROOF, AND DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED TO THE JURY DEFENDANT HAD TEN PRIOR CONVICTIONS, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NO EVIDENCE SHELTER PERSONNEL WERE AWARE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; HEALTH DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE THE DOG HAD BITTEN SOMEONE ELSE NOT IMPUTED TO SHELTER PERSONNEL; NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM EITHER A LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER OR SCAFFOLD TIPPED OR SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.
“Negligent Ownership and Maintenance” vs “Negligent Abatement” Causes of Action in Lead-Paint Case
THE COUNTY DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, THE DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS WERE DISCRETIONARY AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, AND THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEW YORK FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION; PLAINTIFF’S WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION BASED UPON THE DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FROM ABUSE BY FAMILY MEMBERS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONSIDER A THEORY OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER WHICH WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS (FOURTH DEPT).
Response to Jury Note Without Notice to Defendant Required Reversal and a New Trial
FAILURE TO PLACE ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO WEAR A STUNBELT DURING TRIAL, AND FAILURE TO APPRISE DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE, REQUIRED REVERSAL.

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

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION ON... SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO OPEN THE DOOR TO DEFENDANT’S HOME AND SHE SHOT THROUGH...