You are here: / Trusts and Estates
, , ,

THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO OBTAIN COUNSEL WAS NOT MOOT, DESPITE THE FACT THE TRIAL WAS HELD AND COMPLETED IN PETITIONER’S ABSENCE; THE ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined petitioner’s motion for an adjournment to obtain new counsel should have been granted and the appeal of the denial of an adjournment was not moot. The matter was before Surrogate’s Court for an accounting in the estate of Oleg Cassini, who died in 2006. At the time of the request for an adjournment three attorneys had withdrawn from the case. The trial went ahead without the presence of petitioner, Oleg Cassini’s wife Marrianne, and without counsel for petitioner:

An appeal is not moot “[w]here the case presents a live controversy and enduring consequences potentially flow from the order appealed from” … . On the other hand, “[a]n appeal is moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment'” … . Here, enduring consequences flow from the order appealed from since, absent a reversal of the order appealed from, the Surrogate’s Court’s determination after a trial in which Marianne did not participate will bind the parties. * * *

The Surrogate was rightly concerned about the lengthy history of delay in this case, just as we are. However, there was no evident urgency that required the trial to start on July 25, 2016, as opposed to 60 days later, and any prejudice to the objectants could have been readily addressed by appropriate orders dealing with the administration of the estate and its assets. In the overall context of this long-running litigation, an adjournment of 60 days to allow Marianne’s prospective counsel, McKay, to prepare for the trial should have been granted. Indeed, the failure [*6]to grant it has resulted in additional delay and expense in the conclusion of this estate. Given our preference that matters be determined on their merits, and the absence of any indication on this record that Marianne’s motion for an adjournment was made solely for the purpose of delay, the Surrogate’s Court should not have rejected the request out of hand. Matter of Cassini, 2020 NY Slip Op 01056, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

, ,

AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO RESTART THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED DEBT PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that an email exchange did not acknowledge a debt owed to decedent such that the statute of limitations started anew when the exchange took place in 2015. Any action on the debt was time barred:

Jean M. Hollis (hereinafter Jean) died in October 2015, and was survived by six children. Jean’s will, which was admitted to probate in February 2016, provided that “[i]n the event that any of my surviving children shall be indebted to me at the time of my demise, . . . then such indebtedness shall be deducted from any bequest made to said children.” In January 2016, Paul James Hollis (hereinafter the decedent), one of Jean’s children, died, and his wife, Bernadette Hollis (hereinafter Bernadette), was appointed administrator of his estate. In September 2016, the respondent Peter H. Hollis (hereinafter Peter), as an executor of Jean’s estate, filed a notice of claim against the decedent’s estate alleging that it was indebted to Jean’s estate in the sum of $147,265.35, representing the sum of $146,765.35 borrowed by the decedent from Jean between April 2005 and January 2008, and an additional loan made by Jean to the decedent in December 2011 in the sum of $500. …

The subject email arguably acknowledged that the decedent owed a pre-existing debt to Jean, inasmuch as it stated that he had been “informed” by his sister, Jeanine Hollis, that “[he] owe[s] around $140,000 to Mom.” Although the subject email initially stated that “I have every intention of paying this debt,” it then went on to state that “there are some mitigating circumstances that I would like to note sometime in the near future.” In an email sent the next day, the decedent stated “I just want the process to be fair and not arbitrary.” Since the subject email contained language inconsistent with an intention on the part of the decedent to pay the alleged debt, the court erred in concluding that the subject email renewed the statute of limitations pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-101 … . Matter of Hollis, 2020 NY Slip Op 00860, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

, ,

THE TRUST-ASSET-SUBSTITUTION AGREEMENT, SUBSTITUTING LIFE INSURANCE FOR CERTAIN ASSETS, WAS SUBJECT TO EPTL 11-1.7(a)(1); THEREFORE THE PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT RELEASING THE TRUSTEE FROM LIABILITY WAS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND THE TRUSTEE IS LIABLE FOR FAILING TO ENSURE THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS WERE PAID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the 1992 agreement substituting life insurance for trust assets was covered by Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) 11-1.7(a)(1) and the trustee, which owned the policies, was liable in negligence for failing to ensure the premiums were paid (the policies had lapsed). The provision of the trust-asset-substitution agreement exonerating the trustee from liability was invalid as against public policy. The matter was remitted for a determination of damages:

The Surrogate’s Court found that the 1992 agreement created a “new trust agreement” funded in part by the life insurance policies, which was not part of the testamentary trust, and therefore not governed by EPTL 11-1.7(a). The court further found that the agreement released the trustee from any promises relating to “the substitution of property,” which relieved the trustee of any “liability to monitor the investment owed to the trust,” released the trustee and any successor trustee “from any future lawsuit,” and released the trustee of any fiduciary duty to act upon Robert’s default in paying insurance premiums.

Contrary to the conclusion of the Surrogate’s Court, the agreement did not create a new trust. Rather, the agreement provided for the substitution of testamentary trust property with life insurance policies. The petitioner included the life insurance policies in its final account of the testamentary trusts as worthless assets. There is no reference to any separate accounting for the life insurance policies as part of a separate trust. Thus, the duty of the trustee was governed by EPTL 11-1.7(a)(1), which states that the exoneration of a testamentary trustee from liability for failure to exercise reasonable care, diligence, and prudence is contrary to public policy. Matter of Wilkinson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00286, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

, ,

PARTY WHICH PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AFTER FORECLOSURE WAS COMMENCED WAS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS BUT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ALLEGE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS; THE ESTATE OF THE ORIGINAL BORROWER IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the party (appellant) which purchased the property after foreclosure was commenced should have been allowed to intervene in the foreclosure proceedings. The Second Department further determined the estate of the original borrower was not a necessary party, the appellant did not have standing to allege plaintiff bank’s noncompliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 and plaintiff’s failure to serve a notice of default:

On September 10, 2015, the plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage on premises owned by the defendant Shawn A. Carrington. Carrington failed to answer the complaint. On March 23, 2016, Carrington sold the premises to the appellant 1698 Management Corp. …

The appellant was entitled to intervene as of right pursuant to CPLR 1012(a) since it established that the representation of its interest by the parties would be inadequate, that the action involved the disposition of title to real property, and that it would be bound and adversely affected by a judgment of foreclosure and sale … . Contrary to the court’s determination, the appellant was not limited to continuing the action in Carrington’s name pursuant to CPLR 1018. The fact that the appellant obtained its interest in the premises after the action was commenced and the notice of pendency was filed does not definitively bar intervention … , nor does the fact that Carrington defaulted in answering the complaint … . Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the appellant’s motion, made less than five months after it purchased the premises, and before an order of reference was issued, was timely … . US Bank N.A. v Carrington, 2020 NY Slip Op 00173, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

THE TRUST PROVISION IN THE WILL WAS INVALID FOR LACK OF A BENEFICIARY; SURROGATE’S COURT’S CONSTRUCTION OF THE WILL PROPERLY EXPRESSED THE DECEDENT’S INTENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly found that the trust in the will was invalid for lack of a beneficiary and the court’s construction of the will effectuated the decedent’s intent:

There is no dispute regarding Surrogate’s Court’s determination that the trust created in article six of decedent’s will is invalid due to the lack of a beneficiary. Thus, the issue turns on whether the court’s construction of the will, after striking the trust, effectuated decedent’s intent. In addition to creating the invalid trust, the purpose of which was to manage and continue the Dawe Family genealogical research, article six of decedent’s will provides, “I am mindful of my two brothers . . . and of my other relatives, all of whom I love dearly, but I do not make any other direct testamentary disposition for any of them.”… This language is unambiguous and manifests decedent’s intent that none of his family members was to receive direct testamentary gifts … . The language at the end of article six provides that, upon the termination of the trust, “all the assets of the trust . . . shall be distributed outright, free of future trust, to [respondent], a not-for-profit library . . . which promotes and facilitates genealogical research, it being my hope that said library will then preserve (and continue) the Dawe family genealogical research I have conducted (and my said related web site).” This language is similarly unambiguous, manifesting decedent’s intent that respondent receive the residuary of his estate with the hope that decedent’s genealogical research would be continued … . Matter of Dawe, 2020 NY Slip Op 00017, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, , ,

THE EXECUTOR PROPERLY WAIVED THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE ON DECEDENT’S BEHALF TO DEMONSTRATE THROUGH DECEDENT’S ATTORNEY’S TESTIMONY THAT SHARES OF STOCK HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE EXECUTOR WELL BEFORE DECEDENT’S DEATH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the executor of the estate (respondent) properly waived the attorney-client privilege on decedent’s (Anthony’s) behalf and demonstrated. through the decedent’s attorney’s testimony, that decedent’s shares in the corporation (NYSFC) had been transferred to the executor well before decedent’s death. Therefore the shares were properly excluded from the estate. Despite the absence of stock certificates and corporate records, there was no showing that the executor destroyed evidence:

… [T]he Surrogate held a nonjury trial during which respondent, in his capacity as executor, waived decedents’ attorney-client privilege, and decedents’ former counsel thereafter testified that she did not include a specific bequest with respect to Anthony’s NYSFC shares in his most recent will because Anthony had already transferred those shares to respondent. After the trial, the Surrogate concluded that respondent had in fact satisfied his burden and specifically established that the shares of NYSFC were sold and transferred to respondent prior to Anthony’s death. * * *

On appeal, petitioners contend that Mayorga [302 AD2d 11] and Johnson [7 AD3d 959] support waiver of the attorney-client privilege by an executor only if the waiver benefits the estate. Petitioners assert that excluding an asset from the estate would not benefit the estate or its beneficiaries and that those cases therefore do not support a waiver of the attorney-client privilege here inasmuch as any waiver would only benefit the executor respondent. The 2nd Department, however, has permitted the waiver of the attorney-client privilege under circumstances similar to those presented here … .

… [W]e … reject petitioners’ contention that respondent should not have been allowed to waive the attorney-client privilege on decedents’ behalf as executor due to his own self-interest in the testimony of the decedents’ former counsel. Thus, we hereby join the 2nd and 3rd Departments in concluding that the attorney-client privilege may be waived by an executor. Matter of Thomas, 2019 NY Slip Op 08293, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

, , ,

THE ESTATE OF A JOINT TENANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED UPON DEATH, THE ESTATE’S MOTION TO INTERVENE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the estate’s motion to intervene in a foreclosure proceeding was properly denied. When Sydney Burt, a joint tenant with right of survivorship, died, his interest in the property subject to the foreclosure action passed to the joint tenant, Karyn Berkley, and not to Sydney’s estate. Therefore the estate did not have the right to intervene in the foreclosure:

… [T]he issue of whether the proposed intervenor was a necessary party in the action was determined on the merits by the Supreme Court in its order … , wherein it denied the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint for failure to join the proposed intervenor. Thus, the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of whether the proposed intervenor was a necessary party. … [W]e agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny intervention. New York defines a joint tenancy as “an estate held by two or more persons jointly, with equal rights to share in its enjoyment during their lives, and creating in each joint tenant a right of survivorship” … . “The right of survivorship has been defined as a right of automatic inheritance’ where, upon the death of one joint tenant, the property does not pass through the rules of intestate succession, but is automatically inherited by the remaining tenant” … . Therefore, when one joint tenant dies, the other joint tenants automatically inherit the property. This is in marked contrast to tenancies in common which allow a decedent’s share of property to pass under the rules of inheritance … . Thus, here, upon the Sydney Burt’s death, his interest in the property did not pass to his estate, the proposed intervenor; rather, it automatically passed to the remaining joint tenants, the defendant and Berkley. Therefore, the proposed intervenor was not a necessary party and did not have the right to intervene in the foreclosure action. PHH Mtge. Corp. v Burt, 2019 NY Slip Op 07802, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, , , ,

THE DEATH OF A PARTY TO THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFFECTED THE MERITS OF THE CASE; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND THE RELATED ORDER IS A NULLITY; THE APPEAL THEREFORE MUST BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the death of a party to this foreclosure proceeding deprived the court of jurisdiction. Therefore the court should not have considered defendant’s motion and the related order was a nullity:

In 2003, defendant Sharon A. Harris (hereinafter defendant) and defendant Marion D. Schubnel executed a note in favor of plaintiff that was secured by a mortgage on real property located in Albany County. Defendant and Schubnel owned the subject property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. …

… [P]laintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against defendant and Schubnel, among others. Defendant served an answer but Schubnel failed to do so. In November 2016, Schubnel died. In July 2017, defendant moved for leave to serve an amended answer and, as relevant here, sought to add a statute of limitations affirmative defense. In an amended order entered November 2017, Supreme Court granted the motion and sua sponte dismissed the complaint as time-barred. …

The death of a party generally stays an action until a personal representative is substituted for the deceased party … . Strict adherence to this rule, however, is unnecessary where a party’s demise does not affect the merits of the case … .

It is true that defendant, as the surviving joint tenant, obtained Schubnel’s interest in the subject property upon Schubnel’s death. Notwithstanding this transfer of interest, Schubnel’s estate can still be held liable for any deficiency in the event that a sale of the subject property fails to satisfy the debt. Indeed, the complaint specifically requests that such relief be granted should it be necessary … . In the absence of a substitution of Schubnel, a discontinuance of the action insofar as asserted against Schubnel or a representation by plaintiff that it would be waiving its right to seek a deficiency judgment against Schubnel, the death of Schubnel affects the merits of the case … . Because an automatic stay was in effect upon Schubnel’s death, Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion and, therefore, the November 2017 amended order is a nullity … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Schubnel, 2019 NY Slip Op 07462, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED AT THE STAGE WHEN THE PETITION FOR PROBATE WAS PRESENTED FOR FILING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that the validity of the will should not have been determined at the stage when the petition to probate the will was presented for filing:

The question presented to Surrogate’s Court was not whether the purported will should be admitted to probate, but only whether the petition seeking probate of the subject will should have been accepted for filing. It appears that, in presenting their respective positions regarding the motion, the parties addressed, in detail, the validity of the will and whether it was properly executed and, in turn, Surrogate’s Court’s well-intentioned decision addressed those arguments and denied probate. That decision was premature (see SCPA 304, 1402 [1], [2]; 22 NYCRR 207.16 … ). There is a difference between accepting a probate petition for filing and admitting a will to probate. The former merely commences the legal proceeding to determine the validity of a purported will; the latter is but one possible outcome of that process. Here, Surrogate’s Court should have granted petitioner’s motion, directed the Surrogate’s Court Clerk to accept the petition and accompanying papers for filing, issued the appropriate citations and proceeded according to the procedures set forth in SCPA article 14. Matter of Noichl, 2019 NY Slip Op 07468, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION WERE ISSUED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE SIX MONTHS ALLOWED BY CPLR 205 (a) TO REFILE A DISMISSED ACTION, THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ARGUMENT THAT SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG DATE TO CALCULATE THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD PROPERLY RAISED AND CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice/wrongful death action should not have been dismissed because the letters of administration were issued within six months of the prior dismissal. The argument that Supreme Court used the wrong date to calculate the six-month period for re-filing a lawsuit pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) could be raised for the first time on appeal:

On appeal, plaintiff argues for the first time that the prior action was finally terminated when the October 2016 order granting the hospital’s motion was issued, so that the court used the wrong date to calculate when the six-month savings period under CPLR 205(a) began to run. We will consider this argument, since it raises a legal question appearing on the face of the record which could not have been avoided … .

While plaintiff, as voluntary administrator, lacked the legal capacity to enforce decedent’s personal injury and wrongful death claims on behalf of the estate in this second action (Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act § 1306[3] … ), he could remedy this defect by obtaining letters of administration within the six-month savings period provided under CPLR 205(a) … . In applying CPLR 205(a), we bear in mind that it is designed to ameliorate the potentially “harsh consequence of applying a limitations period where the defending party has had timely notice of the action” … . Because the first action was finally terminated on October 18, 2016, and the letters of administration were issued on April 18, 2017, on the last day of the six-month savings period (CPLR 205[a]), plaintiff timely obtained legal capacity to pursue the claims in this action … . Rodriguez v River Val. Care Ctr., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06370, First Dept 8-27-19

 

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