You are here: / Trusts and Estates

SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE CARRIED OUT WHAT DECEDENT CLEARLY INTENDED, DESPITE THE DEFECT IN THE MEANS CHOSEN TO EFFECT HIS INTENT.

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the intent of the decedent was clear from the will and trust documents and should be carried out. The will and trust documents indicated decedent wished the sole asset of his estate, an IRA, be distributed 1/3 to his wife and 2/3 to his daughter. Decedent intended that a living trust he had set up receive the IRA, which all parties agreed was not possible:

​

The wife … contends that pursuant to the terms of the Will, no Testamentary Trust was created into which the IRA proceeds could be transferred, because the Living Trust was neither terminated nor ineffective at the time of the decedent’s death. Such a constrained reading of the Will illustrates “the aptness of Judge Learned Hand’s wise and trenchant observation that courts should be wary of making a fortress out of the dictionary,’ since there is no more likely way to misapprehend the meaning of language . . . than to read the words literally, forgetting the object which the document as a whole’ seeks to achieve” … .

The drafter of the Will testified at his deposition that the decedent not only specifically intended to place the IRA proceeds into the Living Trust, but that the IRA was, in fact, “[t]he only asset” intended to fund the Living Trust. It is undisputed, however, that the Living Trust could not receive the IRA. Under the circumstances, it is evident that the Living Trust was ineffective in carrying out the very purpose for which it was created. Therefore, under the alternative disposition and residuary provisions of article SECOND of the Will, the Testamentary Trust became available to receive the IRA proceeds (see EPTL 13-3.3[a][2]), and it follows that the decedent’s beneficiary designation with respect to the IRA can, and must, be enforced as written, and the order appealed from must be reversed. Matter of Perlman, 2017 NY Slip Op 03957, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE CARRIED OUT WHAT DECEDENT CLEARLY INTENDED, DESPITE THE DEFECT IN THE MEANS CHOSEN TO EFFECT HIS INTENT)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RENUNCIATION OF INHERITANCE WAS INVALID.

The Second Department determined Surrogate’s Court should not have granted the administrator’s (decedent’s father’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections of the decedent’s niece and nephew (objectants) on the ground the niece and nephew did not have standing. Initially decedent’s father, who was entitled to inherit all of decedent’s estate, renounced his inheritance. He then argued the renunciation was invalid and summary judgment was granted in his favor on that ground. The Second Department held there was a question of fact whether the renunciation was invalid:

​

Surrogate’s Court erred in granting the petitioner’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections at issue based on a finding that the objectants lacked standing to challenge the accounting. Where, as here, a decedent who died intestate was survived by a parent but no spouse and no issue, the whole of the decedent’s estate would be distributed to the surviving parent pursuant to EPTL 4-1.1(a)(4). In that event, the objectants, who would not be distributees, would lack standing as persons interested in the estate … . However, EPTL 2-1.11(c)(1) provides, in part, that any beneficiary of a disposition “may renounce all or part of such beneficiary’s interest.” Further, EPTL 2-1.11(g) provides that “[a] renunciation may not be made under this section with respect to any property which a renouncing person has accepted . . . For purposes of this paragraph, a person accepts an interest in property if such person voluntarily transfers or encumbers, or contracts to transfer or encumber all or part of such interest, or accepts delivery or payment of, or exercises control as beneficial owner over all or part thereof, or executes a written waiver of the right to renounce, or otherwise indicates [an] acceptance of all or part of such interest.” Here, the petitioner failed to establish, prima facie, that his renunciation of his interest in the estate was invalid, resulting in him being the sole distributee and the objectants lacking standing as not being persons interested in the estate. The petitioner adduced no evidence to demonstrate that he accepted an interest in the estate by exercising control over it as its beneficial owner prior to his irrevocable renunciation of his interest pursuant to EPTL 2-1.11. Matter of Kaplan, 2017 NY Slip Op 03750, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (RENUNCIATION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RENUNCIATION OF INHERITANCE WAS INVALID)/RENUNCIATION (INHERITANCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RENUNCIATION OF INHERITANCE WAS INVALID)/INHERITANCE (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, RENUNCIATION,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RENUNCIATION OF INHERITANCE WAS INVALID)

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LOAN WAS ORALLY CONVERTED TO A GIFT BY DECEDENT, CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF A GIFT EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined the claim that a loan made by decedent was orally converted to a gift (by the decedent) was not demonstrated. The proof sufficient to prove a gift was laid out by the court:

​

… [T]he plaintiff submitted evidence that the decedent made a loan to the defendant in February 2010 for $50,000, which he did not repay. Contrary to the determination of the court, the defendant’s testimony at his deposition that the decedent told him in 2012 that the loan was “a gift,” without more, does not raise a material issue fact sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s entitlement to judgment. “It has long been the rule in this State that a debt owing from one party to another will not, by a mere oral declaration subsequently made, be transformed from a debt to a gift” … . To make a valid gift, ” the donor must intend to make an irrevocable present transfer of ownership, there must be delivery of the gift, either by physical delivery of the subject of the gift or a constructive or symbolic delivery, and there must be acceptance by the donee”‘ … . “[I]n the case of an oral gift, the fact of delivery serves to assist, in an evidentiary manner, to confirm the intent of the donor, and to prevent the assertion of fraudulent claims” … . Thus, while the defendant’s allegation provides evidence of the decedent’s intent to make a gift of the loan amount, it provides no evidence that the gift was delivered and, consequently, that the gift took effect … . Scotti v Barrett, 2017 NY Slip Op 03031, 2nd Dept 4-19-17

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LOAN WAS ORALLY CONVERTED TO A GIFT BY DECEDENT, CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF A GIFT EXPLAINED)/GIFTS (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LOAN WAS ORALLY CONVERTED TO A GIFT BY DECEDENT, CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF A GIFT EXPLAINED)

,

DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY CAN BE SUED FOR WRONGFUL DEATH UNDER THE EPTL, BOTH FOR THE STABBING DEATH OF HIS MOTHER AND THE RELATED SUICIDE OF HIS BROTHER.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fact that defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity in connection with the stabbing of his mother did not preclude wrongful death claims against him pursuant to EPTL 5-4.1, both for the death of his mother and the related suicide of his brother:

Although defendant was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect in connection with the stabbing death of his mother, the complaint stated a viable wrongful death claim against him pursuant to EPTL 5-4.1, since an insane person may be liable in tort for his actions … . A wrongful death claim was also stated on behalf of defendant’s brother, who committed suicide after his mother’s murder. Rosen v Schwartz, 2017 NY Slip Op 02517, 1st Dept 3-30-17

 

SURROGATE’S COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANCILLARY LETTERS ALLOWING THE NONDOMICILIARY HEIR OF THE OWNER OF A $25 MILLION PAINTING CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS TO SUE TO RECOVER THE PAINTING.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined Surrogate’s Court had jurisdiction to issue ancillary letters allowing the heir of the owner of a painting confiscated by the Nazis to sue to recover the painting. The International Art Center (IAC), which allegedly has possession of the painting in Switzerland, did not have standing to challenge the ancillary letters. The painting, “Seated Man with a Cane” by Modigliani, may be worth $25 million:

… [A]lthough the authority of the Surrogate’s Court over a nondomiciliary’s estate in an ancillary proceeding is generally limited to estate assets within New York … , property includes a “chose in action,” e.g. a cause of action in New York ,,, .

Accordingly, contrary to IAC’s contention, SCPA 206(1) does not require the physical presence of the subject property in New York at the time the proceeding for ancillary letters was commenced. It is sufficient that the Estate had a valid “chose in action” against two New York domiciliaries (the Nahmads), a New York corporation (the Gallery), and IAC, a foreign entity alleged to be owned and controlled by New York residents and doing business in New York.

In this case, personal jurisdiction [over IAC] was acquired based on IAC’s admitted agreement with Sotheby’s to act as its agent to sell the painting in New York in 2008. Further, personal jurisdiction over IAC may be based on respondents’ allegations that IAC transacted business in New York through the Nahmads at the Gallery’s office in Manhattan. Matter of Stettiner, 2017 NY Slip Op 01168, 1st Dept 2-14-17

 

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (SURROGATE’S COURT HAD JURISDICTON TO ISSUE ANCILLARY LETTERS ALLOWING THE NONDOMICILIARY HEIR OF THE OWNER OF A $25 MILLION PAINTING CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS TO SUE TO RECOVER THE PAINTING)/ANCILLARY LETTERS (SURROGATE’S COURT HAD JURISDICTON TO ISSUE ANCILLARY LETTERS ALLOWING THE NONNDOMICILIARY HEIR OF THE OWNER OF A $25 MILLION PAINTING CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS TO SUE TO RECOVER THE PAINTING)/PAINTINGS (SURROGATE’S COURT HAD JURISDICTON TO ISSUE ANCILLARY LETTERS ALLOWING THE NONDOMICILIARY HEIR OF THE OWNER OF A $25 MILLION PAINTING CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS TO SUE TO RECOVER THE PAINTING)

BENEFICIARIES OF TRUST ENTITLED TO EXAMINE TRUSTEE ABOUT MATTERS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST, BUT NOT APPOINTMENT OF THE TRUSTEE.

The Second Department determined the trust beneficiaries were entitled to examine the trustee about matters relating to administration of the trust but not matters related to his appointment as trustee:

SCPA 2211(2) provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he fiduciary may be examined under oath by any party to the proceeding either before or after filing objections, if any, to the account, as to any matter relating to his or her administration of the estate.” The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the trustee’s motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 vacating a notice of deposition served upon him by the trust’s beneficiaries … to the extent of vacating so much of the notice of deposition as sought to examine him as to “the manner in which he and Donald J. Farinacci became or were nominated as successor trustees and Donald J. Farinacci renounced such appointment,” as those issues exceeded the scope of SCPA 2211(2) … . However, under SCPA 2211(2), the trust beneficiaries were entitled to examine the trustee under oath “as to any matter relating to his or her administration of the estate.” Accordingly, the court erred in vacating the entirety of the notice of deposition … . Matter of Jane D. Ritter Revocable Living Trust., 2017 NY Slip Op 00647, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (BENEFICIARIES OF TRUST ENTITLED TO EXAMINE TRUSTEE ABOUT MATTERS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST, BUT NOT APPOINTMENT OF THE TRUSTEE)/SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (BENEFICIARIES OF TRUST ENTITLED TO EXAMINE TRUSTEE ABOUT MATTERS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST, BUT NOT APPOINTMENT OF THE TRUSTEE)

, ,

IN A LAWSUIT BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT, THE EMPLOYERS WERE DEEMED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE TRUST, MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS’ NONCONTRACTUAL CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DERIVATIVE (PERTAINING TO THE TRUST) RATHER THAN DIRECT.

In a case related to State of N.Y. Workers’ Compensation Bd. v Wang, 2017 NY Slip Op 00057, 3rd Dept 1-5-17, referenced immediately above, the Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry (much too complex to summarize here), determined, inter alia, (1) the employer plaintiffs could sue as third-party beneficiaries of the contract between the workers’ compensation trust and its administrators, and (2) many of the employers’ noncontractual claims were properly dismissed as derivative, i.e., pertaining to the trust, rather than direct:

This Court recently held that an employer member of a group self-insured trust successfully alleges third-party beneficiary status by asserting “(1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between [the trust and its administrators], (2) that the contract was intended for [the employer member’s] benefit, and (3) that the benefit to [the employer member] is sufficiently immediate to indicate the assumption by [the trust and its administrators] of a duty to compensate it if the benefit is lost” … . * * *

Supreme Court dismissed many of [the noncontractual] causes of action upon determining that they belonged in the first instance to the trust rather than to the employer members and were thus derivative rather than direct. The distinction between derivative and direct claims is grounded upon the principle that a stockholder does not have an individual cause of action that derives from harm done to the corporation, but may bring a direct claim when “the wrongdoer has breached a duty owed directly to the shareholder which is independent of any duty owing to the corporation” … . In determining whether a claim is direct or derivative, a court must “look to the nature of the wrong and to whom the relief should go” and should consider “(1) who suffered the alleged harm (the corporation or the suing stockholders, individually); and (2) who would receive the benefit of any recovery or other remedy (the corporation or the stockholders, individually)” … . Accredited Aides Plus, Inc. v Program Risk Mgt., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00058, 3rd Dept 1-5-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW  (IN A LAWSUIT BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT, THE EMPLOYERS WERE DEEMED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE TRUST, MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS’ NONCONTRACTUAL CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DERIVATIVE (PERTAINING TO THE TRUST) RATHER THAN DIRECT)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, IN A LAWSUIT BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT, THE EMPLOYERS WERE DEEMED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE TRUST, MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS’ NONCONTRACTUAL CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DERIVATIVE (PERTAINING TO THE TRUST) RATHER THAN DIRECT)/CONTRACT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, IN A LAWSUIT BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT, THE EMPLOYERS WERE DEEMED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE TRUST, MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS’ NONCONTRACTUAL CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DERIVATIVE (PERTAINING TO THE TRUST) RATHER THAN DIRECT)

, ,

MANY (BUT NOT ALL) CAUSES OF ACTION ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD IN AN ACTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined that certain causes of action can go forward in a lawsuit by the Workers’ Compensation Board against administrators and trustees of the Health Care Providers Self-Insurance Trust. The trust, which was to provide workers’ compensation coverage for the trust’s members, was found to be $188 million in debt. The opinion is fact-specific and much too detailed to be summarized here. Breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, gross negligence, alter ego liability, among other theories, were alleged. Many causes of action were deemed time-barred. Some causes of action dismissed by Supreme Court were reinstated. State of N.Y. Workers’ Compensation Bd. v Wang, 2017 NY Slip Op 00057, 3rd Dept 1-5-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (MANY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD IN AN ACTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, MANY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD IN AN ACTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT)/FIDUCIARY DUTY (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, MANY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD IN AN ACTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT)

IN THIS WILL CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH THE WILL DID NOT ANTICIPATE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND WOULD DIE BEFORE HER, THE DECEDENT’S INTENT WAS CLEAR AND WAS PROPERLY ENFORCED BY SURROGATE’S COURT.

In this will construction proceeding, the Third Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly found that the decedent intended to benefit all ten children, including two stepchildren from her husband’s (Warren’s) prior marriage. The will did not anticipate that Warren would die before the decedent. If the laws of intestacy were applied, the two stepchildren would have been excluded. But because decedent’s contrary intent was clear, Surrogate’s Court properly ignored the laws of intestacy:

… [W]hile the residuary clause of the will is silent as to what would happen if decedent outlived Warren, all of her other testamentary dispositions evince the goal of equally dividing her assets among all 10 children, either at the time of her death or Warren’s death. There is nothing in the will to suggest that she intended a contrary result with regard to the residuary estate if Warren died before her, or that she had any interest in excluding petitioner and his sister from that part of her estate. The will implies the contrary and that decedent considered all 10 children as her own, as she named petitioner as one of several trustees in the will and regretted that she could not name all of her “other children” as well. Thus, Surrogate’s Court correctly “g[ave] effect to the expressed general testamentary plan and purpose of the testator” by implying a provision in decedent’s will leaving her residuary estate to all 10 children… . Matter of Warren, 2016 NY Slip Op 06925, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (IN THIS WILL CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH THE WILL DID NOT ANTICIPATE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND WOULD DIE BEFORE HER, THE DECEDENT’S INTENT WAS CLEAR AND WAS PROPERLY ENFORCED BY SURROGATE’S COURT)/WILLS (IN THIS WILL CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH THE WILL DID NOT ANTICIPATE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND WOULD DIE BEFORE HER, THE DECEDENT’S INTENT WAS CLEAR AND WAS PROPERLY ENFORCED BY SURROGATE’S COURT)/CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING (WILLS, ALTHOUGH THE WILL DID NOT ANTICIPATE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND WOULD DIE BEFORE HER, THE DECEDENT’S INTENT WAS CLEAR AND WAS PROPERLY ENFORCED BY SURROGATE’S COURT)

,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN ACTIONS AGAINST EXECUTOR FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENCE.

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted in the objectants’ actions against the executor (Mahler) for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.  The executor sold the estate asset (real property) to an acquaintance for half of its value. The acquaintance sold the property for nearly double the purchase price:

A fiduciary acting on behalf of an estate is required to employ such diligence and prudence to the care and management of the estate assets and affairs as would prudent persons of discretion and intelligence in their own like affairs … . “[A] fiduciary owes a duty of undivided and undiluted loyalty to those whose interests the fiduciary is to protect” … . In performing his fiduciary duty as the executor of the decedent’s estate, Mahler was required to use good business judgment … . To the extent that the sale of the property does not meet this standard, the beneficiaries of the estate may seek to surcharge him … . “To obtain such a surcharge, it is not enough for the contestants to show that the representatives of the estate did not get the highest price obtainable; it must be shown that they acted negligently, and with an absence of diligence and prudence which an ordinary [person] would exercise in his [or her] own affairs” … . Matter of Billmyer, 2016 NY Slip Op 05994, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN ACTIONS AGAINST EXECUTOR FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENCE)/FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF (SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN ACTIONS AGAINST EXECUTOR FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENCE)/EXECUTORS (SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN ACTIONS AGAINST EXECUTOR FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENCE)

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