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
DEFENDANT INSURANCE AGENT WAS NOT UNDER A DUTY TO NOTIFY THE INSURER OF THE INSURED’S DEATH OR TO MAKE SURE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS WERE NAMED ON THE POLICY AFTER THE INSURED’S DEATH; THE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER CONTINUED TO PAY THE HOUSE INSURANCE PREMIUMS AFTER HER MOTHER’S DEATH, WHEN THE HOUSE WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE THE INSURER DISCLAIMED COVERAGE BECAUSE ONLY THE DECEDENT WAS NAMED ON THE POLICY (FOURTH DEPT).
Stop and Investigative Detention of Defendant Was Proper Under DeBour Analysis/Defendant’s Absence from Initial Sandoval Conference Cured by His Presence at a Subsequent Sandoval Hearing/Defendant’s Sentence Reduced Based In Part on a Much Lower Sentence Attached to a Plea Offer
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS REQUIRE THE SAME BLOCKBURGER TEST FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FOURTH DEPT).
PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBTAIN AN ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT AFTER THE COURT REDUCED THE FELONY TO A MISDEMEANOR REQURED VACATION OF THE PLEA AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT.
JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED CONVICTION ON A THEORY NOT IN THE INDICTMENT, COUNT DISMISSED, SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT CONSIDER MITIGATING FACTORS AND INDICATED DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED HARSHLY BECAUSE HE WENT TO TRIAL, SENTENCE REDUCED (FOURTH DEPT).
Despite Broad General Language, the Release Applied Solely to the Property-Damage Claim Referenced In It and Not to Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Action
PROPERTY OWNER (LANDLORD) LIABLE FOR PAYMENT FOR ELECTRICAL WORK REQUIRED BY THE LEASE AND CONTRACTED FOR BY THE LESSEE.

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...