You are here: / / BECAUSE PETITIONER-WIFE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF...

BECAUSE PETITIONER-WIFE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE EPTL, SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO HER ELECTIVE SHARE OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND’S DEATH BENEFIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-wife was not entitled to her elective share of her deceased husband’s death benefit from the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS). Her husband’s father was the named beneficiary. Because petitioner did not comply with the relevant provisions of the Estate, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL), NYCERS was justified in distributing the funds to her husband’s father:

A surviving spouse’s election to take a share of the decedent’s estate “must be made within six months from the date of issuance of letters testamentary or of administration, as the case may be, but in no event later than two years after the date of decedent’s death” (EPTL 5-1.1-A[d][1]). A surviving spouse must file written notice of such election in the Surrogate’s Court that issued the letters testamentary or of administration (see EPTL 5-1.1-A[d][1]).

The provisions of EPTL 5-1.1-A(b) “shall not prevent a corporation or other person from paying or transferring any funds or property to a person otherwise entitled thereto, unless there has been served personally upon such corporation or other person a certified copy of an order enjoining such payment or transfer made by the surrogate’s court having jurisdiction of the decedent’s estate or by another court of competent jurisdiction” (EPTL 5-1.1-A[b][4] …]). EPTL 5-1.1-A(b)(4) further provides that a “corporation or other person paying or transferring any funds or property described in clause (G) of subparagraph one of this paragraph,” which includes death benefits, “to a person otherwise entitled thereto, shall be held harmless and free from any liability for making such payment or transfer, in any action or proceeding which involves such funds or property.”

Here, it is undisputed that the petitioner did not serve NYCERS with an order enjoining it from paying the entirety of the decedent’s death benefit to the named beneficiary, Ghulam. Accordingly, pursuant to EPTL 5-1.1-A(b)(4), NYCERS “shall be held harmless and free from any liability for making such payment” in the instant proceeding. Matter of Baig, 2021 NY Slip Op 01763, Second Dept 3-24-21

 

You might also like
Plaintiffs Should Have Been Allowed to Amend the Pleadings to Conform to the Proof at Trial—No Prejudice to Defendant
Mother Did Not Stipulate to Order of Reference; Therefore Referee Only Had Power to Hear and Report
Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff-Employee Indicated Employer’s Sexual Advances Were “Unwelcome”–Dismissal of Employment Discrimination Complaint Reversed
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT HE DID NOT WANT ANY PART OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
CLAUSE IN THE COMMERCIAL LEASES WHICH WAIVED THE AVAILABILITY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND EXTENDED TO PRECLUDE THE AVAILABILITY OF A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION IN THIS LEASE TERMINATION PROCEEDING, WHETHER WAIVER VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
PROOF OF THE VALUE OF THE STOLEN ITEMS WAS INSUFFICIENT; GRAND LARCENY 3RD DEGREE CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PISTOL LICENSING SERVICE’S DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL LICENSE HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO UPDATE THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV) DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, ESTOP THE DEFENDANT FROM CONTESTING SERVICE OF PROCESS (SECOND 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

THE FAILURE TO ALLEGE SPECIAL DAMAGES WITH PARTICULARITY REQUIRED THE DISMISSAL... THE PEOPLE USED DEFENDANT’S PRETRIAL SILENCE AGAINST HIM IN THEIR DIRECT...