THE PETITION RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE APPELLANT’S DAUGHTER AND THE FAMILY ATTORNEY CAUSED THE APPELLANT TO MISS THE DEADLINES FOR FILING A SPOUSAL ELECTION; ALTHOUGH THE STATUTORY DEADLINES CANNOT BE EXTENDED, THE MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION HERE ASKS WHETHER APPELLANT’S DAUGHTER IS EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM INVOKING THE DEADLINES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Shulman, in a matter of first impression, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the facts alleged, if proven, could support the application equitable estoppel to preclude respondent-daughter from invoking statutory deadlines preventing her mother (the appellant) from filing a spousal election. The petition raised the question whether respondent daughter and the family attorney caused appellant to miss the deadlines:

Appellant is the 88-year-old surviving spouse of the decedent, her husband of 64 years. Over the course of their marriage, they acquired, rehabilitated, and operated 14 East Village buildings forming the core of a family real estate enterprise ultimately valued at more than $45 million. Appellant handled day-to-day management while the decedent handled the financials. Their two children include respondent and a son, Carlo. * * *

Following the decedent’s death, appellant experienced significant medical challenges and cognitive vulnerability leading to hospitalization and rehabilitation. During this period, the family’s long-time attorney, nonparty Gregg Weiss, prepared a broad, highly customized power of attorney naming respondent as attorney-in-fact. This document granted wide authority, with powers far beyond those typically granted in the statutory form, including the power to engage in trust related transactions. It was brought to appellant in the rehabilitation facility, where she signed it without any discussion or explanation of its consequences. * * *

Despite representing appellant and decedent’s estate at the time, Weiss never provided appellant with any drafts beforehand, nor is there any indication Weiss reviewed drafts with her or discussed their legal significance. These are just some of the facts the petition alleges that were the product of fiduciary nondisclosure and conflict. Critically, a video recording in the record shows respondent presenting the documents to appellant, who mutely signs them while visibly medicated on Lorazepam and impaired, without reading or understanding their terms. Matter of Giurdanella, 2026 NY Slip Op 06234, First Dept 10-22-26