You are here: / Trusts and Estates
,

UNBEKNOWNST TO ALL DURING THE 1992 SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEEDING, THE DECEDENT’S BROTHER WAS STILL ALIVE; DECEDENT’S NEPHEW TOOK POSSESSION OF DECEDENT’S PROPERTY, A THREE-STORY BUILDING, IN 1993; THE NEPHEW FIRST BECAME AWARE OF DECEDENT’S BROTHER’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN 2019; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE NEPHEW ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a dissenting opinion, determined respondent (Mr. Golobe), who “inherited” the building after his aunt (Dorothy) died, was entitled to the building through adverse possession after it became known that Dorothy’s brother, Yale, was still alive. During the Surrogate’s Court proceeding a family friend testified that Yale  predeceased Dorothy by six or seven years:

Mr. Golobe. Mr. Golobe took possession of the Premises in October 1992 and has maintained possession since then. He has negotiated leases, collected and retained rent, paid property taxes, executed a construction mortgage, and made substantial renovations to the Premises. Those renovations include a complete structural support overhaul, an interior gut renovation, the replacement of the front entrance and door, the replacement of the second and third floor windows, and the replacement of the roof.

Yale actually died the year after Dorothy, in 1993. His estate passed to his wife Helen, then to Helen’s sister Beatrice, then to Beatrice’s husband Emil Kraus. Upon Mr. Kraus’s death, his estate passed to the Trust, the defendant-appellant in this case. * * *

The question—whether a cotenant may adversely possess property when neither cotenant is aware of the existence of the co-tenancy—is an issue of first impression in New York. We hold that a cotenant may obtain full ownership of jointly owned property even when neither party is aware of the other cotenant’s interest. Mr. Golobe did so.

“To establish a claim of adverse possession, the occupation of the property must be (1) hostile and under a claim of right (i.e., a reasonable basis for the belief that the subject property belongs to a particular party), (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the statutory period (at least 10 years)” … . The parties agree that Mr. Golobe actually, exclusively and continuously occupied the Premises for over 20 years, beginning in October 1992. We must determine whether Mr. Golobe’s possession was hostile, under a claim of right, and open and notorious. It was all three. Golobe v Mielnicki, 2025 NY Slip Op 01670, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: In a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeals determined a cotenant may adversely possess property even when neither cotenant is aware of the existence of the co-tenancy.

 

,

THE PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PETITIONER IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petition for guardianship of the child should not have been dismissed on the ground petitioner was not a relative. The applicable provision of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA 1703) states the petition can be brought by “any person:”

​Although the petitioner is not biologically related to the child, SCPA 1703, which is applicable to this proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 661), provides that a petition for the appointment of a guardian may be brought by “any person” (SCPA 1703 …). Nor was there any basis in the record to dismiss the petition with prejudice … .  Matter of Karma-Marie W. (Jerry W.), 2025 NY Slip Op 00104, Second Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: Pursuant to SCPA 1703 “any person” may petition for guardianship of a child. There is no requirement that petitioner be related to the child.

 

, , ,

THE DEATH OF A PARTY DIVESTS THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, STAYS THE PROCEEDINGS AND TERMINATES THE REPRESENTATION OF THE DECEASED’S ATTORNEY; ANY ORDERS ISSUED OR APPEALS TAKEN ARE VACATED OR DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that the death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and terminates the representation of the attorney for the deceased person:

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015 (a)[, and] any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity” … . Here, the Supreme Court erred in considering the separate motions of the LMB defendants and Bear Stearns pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them because the motions were made after [plaintiff] Roe’s death and prior to any substitution of a personal representative of his estate (see id. § 1015 …). Accordingly, so much of the order … as granted the separate motions of the LMB defendants … to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them must be vacated as a nullity (see CPLR 1015 …), and the appeal taken by the plaintiff Cheryl Lee from so much of the order … granting those branches of the LMB defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the first, third, and sixth causes of action must be dismissed.

Furthermore, the death of a party also terminates an attorney’s authority to act on behalf of the deceased party … . Thus, Roe’s former attorneys lacked the authority to file either the cross-motion or this appeal on his behalf. Accordingly the appeal purportedly taken on Roe’s behalf must be dismissed … . Lee v Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 06624, Second Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction, stays the proceedings until a substitution is made, and terminates the representation of the attorney for the deceased. Any orders issued or appeals taken after the party’s death and before substitution must be vacated or dismissed.​

 

, , , , ,

AFTER THE DEATH OF THE COOPERATIVE OWNER, THE BOARD REFUSED TO TREAT PETITIONER AS DECEDENT’S “SPOUSE” WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE AN AUTOMATIC TRANSFER OF DECEDENT’S LEASE AND SHARES; THE MAJORITY, OVER TWO DISSENTING OPINIONS, DETERMINED THE BOARD’S REFUSAL TO TREAT PETITIONER, WHO WAS NOT MARRIED TO DECEDENT, AS A “SPOUSE” DID NOT CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION BASED ON “MARITAL STATUS” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two dissenting opinions, determined the cooperative board did not discriminate against the petitioner when it declined to treat petitioner as the decedent-cooperative-owner’s “spouse” for the purpose of transferring decedent’s shares to petitioner:

Petitioner Maryanne McCabe resided for 13 years in a New York City cooperative building with her “long-time romantic partner,” David Burrows. Upon Burrows’ death, he willed his real property, including his unit in the building, to petitioner, who then sought to acquire his lease and shares under a lease provision authorizing an automatic transfer to a shareholder’s “spouse.” The cooperative board declined to treat petitioner as a spouse but offered to consider whether she could retain the lease and shares under a clause covering a shareholder’s family member. Petitioner argues that the board’s failure to treat her as a spouse for purposes of the automatic transfer provision violated the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of marital status under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) (see Administrative Code of City of New York § 8-107 [5]). We disagree. * * *

The two were neither married nor in a registered domestic partnership, and petitioner was never added as a shareholder of his unit. Burrows bequeathed his apartment to petitioner when he passed away … . * * *

The NYCHRL does not define “marital status,” but Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “[t]he condition of being single, married, legally separated, divorced, or widowed” (Black’s Law Dictionary [12th ed 2024], marital status). Along the same lines is the general understanding: “when one is queried about one’s ‘marital status,’ the usual and complete answer would be expected to be a choice among ‘married,’ ‘single,’ etc.” … . A plain reading of the term, then, is that marital status reflects the legal condition of being single, married, legally separated, divorced, or widowed. Marital status turns on whether an individual has “participated or failed to participate in a marriage …”. Matter of McCabe v 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06290, CtApp 12-17-24

Practice Point: The cooperative board’s refusal to treat a “long time romantic partner” of the decedent-cooperative-owner as decedent’s “spouse” for purposes of an automatic transfer of the lease and shares did not constitute discrimination on the basis of “marital status” under the NYC Human Rights Law.

 

, ,

THE OPTION TO PURCHASE THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT WHEN IT BECAME VACANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES; ALTHOUGH THE TENANT IN THE UNIT WAS NOT NAMED, REFERENCE TO THE TENANCY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPLY A “LIFE IN BEING” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contract giving plaintiff the option to purchase a condominium unit when the unit became vacant did not violate the rule against perpetuities (Estates, Powers and Trusts Law [EPTL] 9-1.1):

The court’s determination that there was no relevant life in being specifically named in the option, and therefore, the option was required to vest [*2]within 21 years, is too rigid an application of the rule. Rather, “[i]t is sufficient if a plain implication arises that a certain class or number of lives mentioned or referred to are selected for a limitation of the gift or trust” (61 Am Jur 2d, Perpetuities, Etc. § 16; see also Fitchie v Brown, 211 US 321, 333 [1908]).

Here, the … rider expressly stated:

“As Seller is unable to deliver vacant possession of Unit 5SR at the closing hereof, the Purchaser shall only purchase Unit 5SF . . . and the Purchaser shall have the option to purchase Unit 5SR at the time the Seller shall be able to deliver vacant possession thereof on all of the same terms and conditions as contained herein . . .”

Although the tenant is not expressly named in the option, the language of the option expressly makes the termination of his tenancy the relevant date upon which the option can be exercised … . Therefore, the court should not have determined that the reference to the tenant is too indefinite to serve as the relevant life in being. In addition, the interpretative canon set forth in EPTL 9-1.3(b), under which it is “presumed that the creator intended the estate to be valid,” applies. Protetch v Jocar Realty Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05317, First Dept 10-29-24

Practice Point: This decision includes a rare discussion of the how the rule against perpetuities should be interpreted and applied.

 

, ,

THE PARTY WHO BROUGHT THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION WAS NOT A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEDENT’S ESTATE AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING; BECAUSE THE PARTY HAD NO RIGHT TO SUE, “SUBSTITUTION” OF THE EXECUTORS FOR THAT PARTY WAS NOT AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) plaintiffs’ cross-motion to substitute the executors of decedent’s estate for plaintiffs should not have been granted, and (2) defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing should have been granted. The plaintiff who purportedly brought the wrongful death action (a “proposed” executor) was not a “personal representative” under the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL). Therefore, “substitution” of the executors for the plaintiff was not possible:

… [A]s a “[p]roposed” executor who had not obtained letters to administer decedent’s estate, plaintiff was not a personal representative within the meaning of the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law at the time the action was commenced and thus did not have standing to commence an action on behalf of decedent’s estate … . Thus, we agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s cross-motion to substitute as plaintiffs the executors of decedent’s estate inasmuch as “[s]ubstitution . . . is not an available mechanism for replacing a party . . . who had no right to sue with one who has such a right” … .

We … agree with defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was brought by a party without standing … . Cappola v Tennyson Ct., 2024 NY Slip Op 04672, Fourth Dept 9-27-24

Practice Point: Only a “personal representative” of a decedent’s estate has standing to sue on behalf of the decedent  Here the suit was brought by a party who had not obtained letters to administer the estate and therefore did not have standing. “Substitution” of the executors for a party without standing is not possible.

 

, ,

HERE THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL IN THE ORIGINAL DEED DIVIDING THE PROPERTY INTO EIGHT PARTS WAS A VALID DEFENSE TO THE PARTITION ACTION; HOWEVER, IF DEEMED TO RUN WITH THE LAND, THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL VIOLATED THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the right of first refusal in the original deed which divided the property into eight parts was a valid defense to the partition action. However the right of first refusal could not be enforced because it violated the rule against perpetuities:

A right of first refusal . . . is a preemptive or contractual right to ‘receive an offer'” … . “[I]t is a restriction on the power of one party to sell without first making an offer of purchase to the other party upon the happening of a contingency” … . A reasonable, valid, and enforceable right of first refusal constitutes a good defense to a partition action … . However, with narrow exceptions not applicable here, rights of first refusal are subject to the rule against perpetuities and are thus invalid if it is possible for the future interests they represent to vest outside the prescribed time period (see EPTL 9-1.1[b] …).

Here, the 1966 deed demonstrates that the right of first refusal was for the benefit of the original grantees only … . Moreover, to the extent that the surrounding circumstances demonstrate an intent that the covenant should run with the land … , the restriction would violate the rule against perpetuities (see EPTL 9-1.1[b]…). Block 865 Lot 300, LLC v Baione, 2024 NY Slip Op 04189, Second Dept 8-14-24

Practice Point: A right of first refusal in a deed is a valid defense to a partition action.

Practice Point: Here the right of first refusal in the original deed applied only to the original grantees and, if deemed a covenant which runs with the land, it violated the rule against perpetuities.

 

, ,

A DECEASED PARTY’S ADMISSIONS ARE NOT HEARSAY AS AGAINST THAT PARTY’S ESTATE AND SUPPORT THE PETITIONER-ESTATE’S CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CLAIM; THE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT ESTATE WAS PRESENT DURING DISCUSSIONS AT THE HEART OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CLAIM AND MUST BE DISQUALIFIED UNDER THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined summary judgment dismissing the constructive trust cause of action and denying the motion to disqualify counsel because he would necessarily be a witness should not have been granted. Mother, Isabel, alleged, as Medicaid planning, she transferred $1.6 million to her daughter, Jody, to be held by Jody during Isabel’s lifetime and then distributed equally among Jody and her two siblings. Jody, however, predeceased Isabel. Upon learning the accounts set up by Jody had only $255,000 in them, Isabel asserted a claim against Jody’s estate for $2 million. Subsequently Isabel died. The lawyer who represents Jody’s executor in the instant proceedings, Leibowitz, took notes during a telephone conference among himself, Isabel and Jody when the Medicaid planning transfer was discussed. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here. Suffice to say that there was sufficient evidence that Jody had made admissions concerning the Medicaid planning agreement which is the basis for the constructive trust cause of action. Jody’s admissions are not excludable as hearsay against her estate. The First Department also concluded Leibowitz’s status as witness required his disqualification:

… [A]n admission by a party is admissible against that party, as an exception to the hearsay rule, as evidence of the matter asserted in the admission, whether or not the party’s statement was against his or her interest at the time the statement was made … . Moreover, “[a]dmissions of a testator or intestate are competent against the estate” … . Accordingly, admissions by Jody are competent evidence against Jody’s executor, the representative of her estate. * * *

… [T]he 2009 notes reflect that Leibowitz discussed with Jody and Isabel the transfers at issue in this case, and Robert [Isabel’s son and executor of her estate] may examine Leibowitz at trial about Jody’s statements to him concerning any agreements, understanding or promises between herself and Isabel relating to those transfers. While it cannot be determined at this juncture whether Leibowitz’s testimony will be of material assistance to Robert in proving his claim, it remains the case that Leibowitz discussed matters related to that claim with Jody, and his recollections of Jody’s statements will be admissible against Jody’s executor as admissions. Because Leibowitz should be a witness in this case, his continued representation of Jody’s executor in this proceeding violates the advocate-witness rule and disqualification pursuant to rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is appropriate. Matter of Newman, 2024 NY Slip Op 03544, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point:  A deceased party’s admissions are not hearsay as against that party’s estate.

Practice Point: An attorney who will be called as a witness for the opposing party must be disqualified under the advocate-witness rule.

 

, , ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE DECEASED DEFENDANT BY DECEDENT’S FORMER ATTORNEYS WHO HAD NOT BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR THE DECEDENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HAVE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER SUBSITITUTED AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEDENT REQUIRED NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN DECEDENT’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the death of the defendant in this traffic accident case divested the court of jurisdiction and the motion to dismiss by the decedent’s former attorneys, who had not been substituted for the decedent, should not have been considered by the court. The Appellate Division also noted that plaintiff’s motion to substitute decedent’s daughter as a representative for the decedent required notice to all persons interested in decedent’s estate:

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a). Moreover, any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity” .. . “The death of a party terminates his or her attorney’s authority to act on behalf of the deceased party” … . Although the determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party is an exception to a court’s lack of jurisdiction, here, the motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint was made by the former attorneys for the decedent purportedly on behalf of the decedent. Since the former attorneys lacked the authority to act, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion … . Accordingly, so much of the order as granted the motion purportedly made on behalf of the decedent is a nullity.

Further, any motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 requires that notice be provided to persons interested in the decedent’s estate … . Here, the plaintiff failed to provide notice to persons interested in the decedent’s estate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion with leave to renew upon service on persons interested in the decedent’s estate. Fazilov v Acosta, 2024 NY Slip Op 03470, Second Deppt 6-26-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant in a traffic accident case died. The decedent’s former attorneys did not have the authority to make a motion to dismiss and the court should not have considered it.​

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s motion to have decedent’s daughter substituted for decedent required notice all persons interested in decedent’s estate.

 

,

PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT ABOUT EACH HAVING 50% OWNERSHIP OF TWO RESTAURANTS; DEFENDANT USED THE RESOURCES FROM THOSE RESTAURANTS TO OPEN A THIRD; PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, in her affidavit, had raised questions of fact about the existence of a constructive trust and whether defendant was unjustly enriched. Plaintiff and defendant were in a romantic relationship. Plaintiff alleged she and defendant agreed two restaurants would be jointly owned but would be in defendant’s name for tax purposes. After the relationship ended, defendant had used the resources from the two restaurants to open a third:

“To prove unjust enrichment, a party must show that the other party was enriched at his or her expense, and it is against equity and good conscience to permit that person to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . In order to impose a constructive trust, a litigant is generally required to establish four elements by clear and convincing evidence: “(1) a fiduciary or confidential relationship; (2) an express or implied promise; (3) a transfer in reliance on the promise; and (4) unjust enrichment” … . However, the four “elements . . . serve only as a guideline, and a constructive trust may still be imposed . . . provided that those factors are substantially present” … . Further, there is no requirement that the alleged promise be expressly stated; rather, “a promise may be implied or inferred from the very transaction itself” … . Courts have also “extended the transfer element to include instances where funds, time and effort were contributed in reliance on a promise to share in some interest in property, even though no transfer actually occurred” … . Canas v Oshiro, 2023 NY Slip Op 05585, Second Dept 11-8-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff and defendant were in a romantic (i.e., a confidential) relationship. The alleged oral agreement that they each had a 50% interest in two restaurants supported plaintiff’s action for constructive trust and unjust enrichment based upon defendant’s using the resources from the restaurants to open a third.

 

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