You are here: / Trusts and Estates
,

Action Dismissed Because Letters of Administration Had Not Been Issued to Plaintiff at the Time the Action Was Commenced

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of the action because the plaintiff had not received letters of administration at the time the summons with notice was filed and because the plaintiff did not allege any injury to him individually.  The court also noted that the plaintiff did not have standing (no representative capacity at the time the action was commenced) to request more time to serve the complaint:

A personal representative who has received letters of administration of a decedent's estate is the only party who is authorized to commence a survival action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the decedent or a wrongful death action to recover damages sustained by the decedent's distributees on account of his or her death … . Here, at the time the action was commenced by the filing of the summons with notice, the plaintiff had not yet received letters of administration of the decedent's estate and, thus, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was to dismiss the action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff in a representative capacity … . Moreover, although the action was commenced by the plaintiff, both individually and as “executor” of the decedent's estate, no cause of action asserted any injury or wrongdoing to him … . Thus, the Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was to dismiss the action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff individually.

Moreover, as the plaintiff lacked standing to sue in his representative capacity at the time he commenced the action, he could not establish any meritorious basis to extend his time to serve the complaint … . Shelley v Sooth Shore Healthcare, 2014 NY Slip Op 08625, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

,

Where There Is a Surviving Partner and No Agreement to the Contrary, the Representative of a Deceased Partner Cannot Participate in the Winding Up of the Partnership and Has No Legal Right to the Partnership’s Assets, Books, Records or Business

The Second Department noted that the power to wind up a partnership (here BDF) is held by the surviving partner (here 6D) and cannot be exercised by the representative of a deceased partner (here Mrs. Benedict):

Under Partnership Law § 68, “[u]nless otherwise agreed the partners who have not wrongfully dissolved the partnership or the legal representative of the last surviving partner, not bankrupt, has the right to wind up the partnership affairs; provided, however, that any partner, his [or her] legal representative, or his [or her] assignee, upon cause shown, may obtain winding up by the court.” Further, on the death of a partner, “his [or her] right in specific partnership property vests in the surviving partner or partners, except where the deceased was the last surviving partner, when his [or her] right in such property vests in his [or her] legal representative” (Partnership Law § 51[2][d]…). The representative of a deceased partner is not entitled to participate in or interfere with the continuation of or winding up of partnership business by the surviving partner … .

Based on this authority, the Supreme Court correctly determined that, upon Mrs. Benedict's death, 6D was the only entity with a legal right to wind up BDF's business affairs because 6D was the only surviving partner. Moreover, upon Mrs. Benedict's death, the estate had no legal right to BDF's assets, books, records, or business. Rather, all rights to such property vested immediately in 6D, which was the only entity authorized to wind up BDF's business.  Neilson v 6D Farm Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 08409, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

The Public Administrators of Two Counties Claimed the Authority and Jurisdiction for Letters of Administration Re: the Estate of an Incapacitated Person—In Resolving the Dispute the Appellate Court Discussed the Authority of a Public Administrator As Well As Surrogate’s Court’s Jurisdiction and the Decedent’s Domicile

The Second Department dealt with many issues which resulted from the public administrators in two counties applying for letters of administration re: the estate of an incapacitated person, a resident of Kings County who had moved from a nursing home in Kings County to a nursing home in Richmond County, where she died.  The administrator to whom the letters were issued first (Stein in Kings County) prevailed.  The court was asked to resolve many questions concerning a public administrator's authority, as well as questions concerning jurisdiction and domicile (not all of which are mentioned here):

Stein has exclusive authority to administer the decedent's estate pursuant to SCPA 704. That section provides, in part, that “[a] person who applies in good faith therefor, and to whom letters are first issued from a court having jurisdiction to issue them, has exclusive authority under the letters until they are revoked” (SCPA 704 [emphasis added]). Here, letters of administration were first issued to Stein by the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, and the record supports Stein's assertion that he had applied in “good faith” for letters of administration, without notice or knowledge of the petition filed in Richmond County (SCPA 704). Further, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, did not lack jurisdiction to issue letters of administration to Stein. Since the decedent was a domiciliary of New York State at the time of her death, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over the decedent's estate (see SCPA 205 [1]).

…[T]he Surrogate's Court, Kings County, did not lack personal jurisdiction over certain alleged distributees of the decedent. Pursuant to SCPA 1003(2), “[e]very eligible person who has a right to administration prior or equal to that of the petitioner and who has not renounced must be served with process upon an application for letters of administration” (emphasis added). However, “[w]here the right of the applicant for letters of administration is superior to the right of other persons interested in the estate, process need not issue and letters will be granted upon a proper petition and due qualification” (1-13 NY Practice Guide: Probate & Estate Admin § 13.08; see Margaret Valentine Turano, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 58A, SCPA 1003 at 46-47). Further, SCPA 1001 mandates the issuance of letters of administration to the public administrator where the only known distributees of a decedent are “issue of grandparents, other than aunts or uncles, on only one side” (SCPA 1001[1][f][ii]). * * *

…[T]he county in which the decedent was domiciled at the time of her death is not determinative here. Since Stein had “exclusive authority” to administer the decedent's estate under the letters of administration issued by the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, “until they are revoked” (SCPA 704 [emphasis added]), improper venue would not be a valid ground for revocation of those letters of administration. “Since domicile is a waivable and nonjurisdictional concept, if a court mistakenly, without objection, exercises jurisdiction over the estate of a domiciliary of another county, its decree is not vulnerable to direct or collateral attack for lack of subject matter jurisdiction” (…1-2 Warren's Heaton on Surrogate's Court Practice § 2.12).

In any event, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, correctly determined that the decedent was domiciled in Kings County at the time of her death. The Surrogate's Court Procedure Act defines domicile as “[a] fixed, permanent and principal home to which a person wherever temporarily located always intends to return” (SCPA 103[15]). ” The determination of an individual's domicile is ordinarily based on conduct manifesting an intent to establish a permanent home with permanent associations in a given location'” … . “The law is well settled that an existing domicile continues until a new one is acquired,” and “[i]t is incumbent upon the party seeking to prove a change of domicile to demonstrate such a change by clear and convincing evidence” … . “To meet this burden, the movant must establish the decedent's intention to effect a change of domicile from her [or his] acts, statements, and conduct” (id.), and ” [t]he element of intent is essential'” … . Thus, generally, “an incapacitated person's admission into a health-care facility does not cause a change of domicile if the incapacitated person is unable to express an intention to establish a new domicile” … . Here, [the Richmond County public administrator] failed to meet his burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that the decedent changed her domicile from Kings County to Richmond County, inasmuch as the record reveals that the decedent lacked the capacity to express an intention to change her domicile … . Further, the mere fact that [the guardian of decedent's person was] given the authority to choose the decedent's “place of abode,” does not warrant the conclusion that [guardian] had any authority to change the decedent's domicile … . Matter of Bonora, 2014 NY Slip Op 08425, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

, ,

New Notice of Claim Did Not Need to Be Filed After Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Death Due to Injuries Described in the Pre-Death Notice of Claim

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined that plaintiffs, in an asbestos-exposure action against the Port Authority, did not need to file a new notice of claim after plaintiff’s decedent’s death from injuries described in the notice of claim filed when plaintiff’s decedent was alive.  After plaintiff’s decedent’s death, the original notice of claim was amended to add the administratrix and reference to the wrongful death claim:

A statute requires anyone who brings a lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey first to serve a notice stating the nature of the claim. We hold that under this statute a notice of a claim for personal injuries is a sufficient notice of a claim for wrongful death, where the person injured dies of his injuries between the service of the notice of claim and the beginning of the lawsuit.

The Port Authority was created in 1921 by a bi-state compact between New York and New Jersey. As an agency of two sovereign states, it cannot be sued without a waiver of sovereign immunity. Such a waiver was enacted by both states’ legislatures in 1950. The New York version of the legislation is found in sections 7101 through 7112 of the Unconsolidated Laws.

The contents of a notice of claim are specified in section 7108:

“The notice of claim required by section [7107] shall be in writing, sworn to by or on behalf of the claimant or claimants, and shall set forth (1) the name and post office address of each claimant and of his attorney, if any, (2) the nature of the claim, (3) the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose, and (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained so far as then practicable.”

Here, the relevant statutory requirements are that a notice must specify the claimant, the time and place where the claim arose, the nature of the claim, and “so far as then practicable” the items of damage or injuries sustained (see Unconsolidated Laws § 7108 …). Those requirements were sufficiently met by the explanation in [plaintiff’s] notice of claim that he had contracted malignant mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos on the World Trade Center site in the early 1970s, and suffered physical and emotional injuries and incurred medical expenses as a result. This information was definite enough to fulfill the purpose of the notice of claim requirement: to allow the State to investigate the claim and to estimate its potential liability. It is hard to see how a later notice adding the information that the claimant had died of his disease could have been necessary to an investigation. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig, 2014 NY Slip Op 08053, CtApp 11-20-14

 

,

Filing of Article 78 Petition Itself Constituted a Demand that Respondent Perform Its Duty, the Triggering Event for the Four-Month Statute of Limitations in a Mandamus to Compel Proceeding/Supreme Court and Surrogate’s Court Have Concurrent Jurisdiction Over the Administration of an Estate

The Second Department noted that Supreme Court and Surrogate’s Court have concurrent jurisdiction over the administration of a decedent’s estate. The petitioner commenced the Article 78 proceeding to compel the NYC Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) to accept a designation of a beneficiary form.  Surrogate’s Court had declined to exercise jurisdiction over the proceeding. The Second Department explained that the filing of the petition itself triggered the four-month statute of limitations for mandamus, so the proceeding was timely:

In a proceeding in the nature of mandamus to compel, the four-month statute of limitations begins to run “after the respondent’s refusal, upon the demand of the petitioner . . . to perform its duty” (CPLR 217[1]…). The filing of a CPLR article 78 petition can itself be construed as a demand … . Here, the petitioner made her demand that NYCERS perform its duty to accept her late husband’s fully completed and notarized designation of beneficiary form by filing the petition in this proceeding … . Accordingly, the petition is not time-barred … . Matter of Gopaul v NYC Employees’ Retirement Sys, 2014 NY Slip Op 0802-0, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff Had Made Out a Prima Facie Case of Undue Influence—Trial Judge Erred by Making Credibility Determinations and Granting a Judgment In Favor of the Defendant As a Matter of Law (CPLR 4401)

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 should not have been granted.  The plaintiff sought to set aside a conveyance by deed on the ground of undue influence. The Second Department held that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and sent the matter back for trial in front of a different judge:

” A trial court’s grant of a CPLR 4401 motion for judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party'” … . ” In considering the motion, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may be properly drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant'” … .

The burden of proving undue influence generally rests with the party asserting its existence … . “However, where there is a confidential relationship between the beneficiary and the grantor, [a]n inference of undue influence’ arises which requires the beneficiary to come forward with an explanation of the circumstances of the transaction” … . “In the absence of an explanation, the beneficiary has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the transaction was fair and free from undue influence” … .

Here, in granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, the Supreme Court improperly resolved issues of the credibility of the witnesses against the plaintiff … . Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolving all issues of credibility in the plaintiff’s favor, we find that the plaintiff established, prima facie, that a confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the defendant, requiring the defendant to come forth with an explanation of the circumstances of the transaction. Palladino v McCormick, 2014, NY Slip Op 07992, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

, ,

Relationship Between the “Open Repudiation [of Fiduciary Obligations] Rule” and the Laches Defense Explained/Allegations that Investments Made by the Fiduciary Underperformed Does Not State a Cause of Action for Breach of the Fiduciary Duty

In reversing Surrogate’s Court’s dismissal of objections to the fiduciary’s final accounting based on the laches defense, the Fourth Department explained the “open repudiation rule” and its relationship to laches.  To take advantage of the laches defense, the fiduciary must have openly repudiated his or her obligation or there must have been a judicial settlement of the fiduciary’s account, niether of which took place here.  The Fourth Department reached the same result as did Surrogate’s Court by concluding, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), that the numerous specific objections failed to state any cause of action against the fiduciary.  With respect to the “open repudiation rule” and the “underperforming investments” allegations, the court wrote:

… [T]he open repudiation rule applies to the defense of laches … . As the Court of Appeals stated in Barabash, “[a] fiduciary is not entitled to rely upon the laches of his beneficiary as a defense, unless he repudiates the relation to the knowledge of the beneficiary” … . Moreover, the open repudiation rule “requires proof of a repudiation by the fiduciary which is clear and made known to the beneficiaries” … . * * * Inasmuch as petitioner’s repudiation of its role of fiduciary was a prerequisite to its assertion of the defense of laches, and because no such repudiation occurred, we conclude that the Surrogate erred in permitting petitioner to assert that defense and in dismissing the objections on the ground that the objections were barred thereby. * * *

The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are ” the existence of a fiduciary duty, misconduct by the [fiduciary] and damages that were directly caused by the [fiduciary’s] misconduct’ ” … . * * *

We reject objectants’ contention that they stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty by filing an objection to petitioner’s refusal to consider investment in nonproprietary funds. Objectants correctly concede that the Prudent Investor Act permits petitioner to invest trust assets in proprietary funds (see EPTL 11-2.3 [d]). The Prudent Investor Act also requires a trustee such as petitioner with “special investment skills” to “exercise such diligence in investing and managing assets as would customarily be exercised by prudent investors of discretion and intelligence having special investment skills” (EPTL 11-2.3 [b] [6]). Even under this standard, however, ” it is not sufficient that hindsight might suggest that another course would have been more beneficial; nor does a mere error of investment judgment mandate a surcharge’ ” … . Thus, it is well settled that ” a fiduciary’s conduct is not judged strictly by the success or failure of the investment . . . In short, the test is prudence, not performance, and therefore evidence of losses following the investment decision does not, by itself, establish imprudence’ ” … . Here, objectants merely alleged that the proprietary funds were underperforming, which is insufficient to state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty … . Matter of JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, 2014 NY Slip Op 07799, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

Summary Judgment Admitting Will to Probate Appropriate Where Objections to the Will (“Testamentary Capacity” and “Undue Influence”) Not Supported

The Third Department determined summary judgment admitting the will to probate was appropriately granted where the “testamentary capacity” and “undue influence” objections were not supported by evidence:

“Whether to dismiss a party’s objections and admit the challenged will to probate is a matter committed to the sound discretion of Surrogate’s Court and, absent an abuse of that discretion, the court’s decision will not be disturbed” … . While rare, summary judgment in a contested probate proceeding is appropriate where a petitioner establishes a prima facie case for probate and the objectant does not raise any factual issues regarding testamentary capacity, execution of the will, undue influence or fraud … . Upon our review of the record, we find that respondent has raised no such issues and we, therefore, conclude that Surrogate’s Court properly awarded summary judgment to petitioner.

As to testamentary capacity, petitioner bore the initial burden of establishing that decedent understood the nature and consequences of making the will, the nature and extent of her property, and the natural objects of her bounty … . Notably, it was only necessary to demonstrate that decedent had “a general, rather than a precise, knowledge of the assets in . . . her estate” … .  * * *

…[T]he fact that a decedent was subject to undue influence is established when he or she “‘was actually constrained to act against [his or her] own free will and desire by identifying the motive, opportunity and acts allegedly constituting the influence, as well as when and where such acts occurred'” … . Here, notwithstanding the confidential relationship between decedent and petitioner …, the record is bereft of any direct or circumstantial evidence indicating that petitioner exercised undue influence over decedent … . “On the contrary, [the evidence] indicate[s] that the will was the product of the free and unfettered act of [decedent]” … . Matter of Vosilla, 2014 NY Slip Op 07417, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

Jury Instruction Re: Presumption Will Was Duly Executed Proper Even In Absence of Self-Attesting Affidavits by the Witnesses

The Third Department determined the absence of self-attesting witness affidavits did not preclude instructing the jury that it could presume the will was duly executed if it found that the witnesses signed their names after the attestation clause:

…”[I]f the attestation clause is full and the signatures genuine and the circumstances corroborative of due execution, and no evidence disproving a compliance in any particular, the presumption may be lawfully indulged that all the provisions of the statute were complied with, although the witnesses are unable to recollect the execution of what took place at the time” … . The attestation clause here states that decedent signed the will in the presence of the attesting witness, declared the document to be her last will and testament, and the witnesses signed the clause at decedent’s request and in her presence, in accord with the statutory criteria (see EPTL 3-2.1). Moreover, both attesting witnesses confirmed that they were present during the ceremony, that they signed the attestation clause and that decedent appeared of sound mind. One witness testified that he observed decedent sign the will, while the other witness, who was a notary public, testified that she would not have served as a witness unless decedent signed the will in her presence. In this context, Surrogate’s Court properly charged the jury regarding the presumption of due execution of the will … . Matter of Shapiro, 2014 NY Slip Op 07395, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

, ,

Surrogate’s Court Abused Its Discretion In Awarding Attorney’s Fees Greater than Those Called for by the Retainer Agreement—Evidence in Support of “Exceptional Circumstances” Justifying the Higher Fees Not Sufficient—Retainer Agreement Construed in Light Most Favorable to the Client

The Third Department determined Surrogate’s Court erred in awarding attorney’s fees in excess of those agreed to in the retainer agreement between the executors of an estate and the attorney hired to handle the estate.  Although the retainer agreement allowed for increased fees for “extenuating circumstances,” the Third Department found the proof of consultation and approval re: increased fees, required by the retainer agreement, lacking.  The court noted that a retainer agreement is construed in the light most favorable to the client:

Surrogate’s Court abused its discretion in fixing [the estate attorney’s] fee at $50,000. Surrogate’s Court is vested with broad discretion to fix the reasonable compensation of an attorney who renders legal services to a fiduciary of an estate, subject to modification only where that discretion has been abused (see SCPA 2110…). While the court is not bound by a retainer agreement when determining whether an unreasonable fee must be restricted …, a court “cannot award legal fees in excess of what has been agreed to by the parties in a retainer agreement” … . The attorney seeking fees bears the burden of establishing the reasonable value of the services rendered … . * * *

“The general rule that ‘equivocal contracts will be construed against the drafters’ is subject to particularly rigorous enforcement in the context of attorney-client retainer agreements,” such that we must construe the agreement in the light most favorable to the clients … . Matter of Benware, 2014 NY Slip Op 07218, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

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