You are here: / Trusts and Estates
, ,

Surrogate’s Court Could Not Award Attorney’s Fees for Services Provided to Decedent’s Legatee (as Opposed to Services which Benefitted the Estate)

The Second Department upheld Surrogate’s Court’s ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees for the attorney’s (Klein’s) handling of Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding to have decedent’s legatee (Theodore) declared an incapacitated person:

“The Surrogate’s Court, as a court of limited jurisdiction, may exercise only the powers conferred upon it by statute and those powers incidental, inherent or necessary to do justice in a particular case to which its jurisdiction extends” … . Although the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act authorizes the court to fix and determine attorney’s fees for services rendered to a beneficiary of an estate (see SCPA 2110[1]), “[t]he only proper parties before the Surrogate on an accounting are creditors or those claiming to be creditors of the decedent” … . Contrary to Theodore’s contention, “the Surrogate’s Court has no jurisdiction over a claim by a creditor against a distributee or legatee of an estate” … . However,”the Surrogate has jurisdiction to determine, and is in the best position to determine, which legal services performed by [an attorney] benefitted the estate, and which benefitted only the individual interests of [a party]” … . Since the record supports the Surrogate’s determination that the services performed by Klein benefitted Theodore personally rather than the decedent’s estate, the court, in effect, upon reargument, properly adhered to its determination that it lacked jurisdiction to set Klein’s fee… . Matter of Tarlow, 2013 NY Slip Op 07491, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

, , ,

Bank Was Not a Statutory Lien Law Trustee; Question of Fact Whether Bank Was Aware Funds Were Diverted Lien Law Trust Funds

Plaintiff, a subcontractor in an environmental remediation project run by defendant AAA Environmental, sued on behalf of similarly situated subcontractors alleging that the arrangement AAA had with First Niagara Bank violated Lien Law article 3-A.  By that arrangement, each night funds from AAA’s operational account would be transferred to AAA’s line of credit account to reduce the balance. If the amount to be charged to AAA’s operational account exceeded the funds available, funds would be automatically transferred from the line of credit account to the operational account. Supreme Court determined the arrangement violated the Lien Law finding that Niagara Bank had notice the funds were diverted Lien Law trust funds and the bank was not a holder in due course. The Fourth Department disagreed and held Niagara Bank is not a Lien Law statutory trustee and there was a question of fact whether Niagara Bank had notice it was receiving diverted Lien Law trust funds:

First Niagara is not a Lien Law statutory trustee under the facts of this case and thus cannot be held liable for a violation of the Lien Law on that basis. “A lender is not a statutory trustee because ‘[n]o one other than an owner, contractor, or subcontractor is designated as a prospective trustee in article 3-A [of the Lien Law]’ ” … .  Although the Court of Appeals has held that a lender may become a statutory trustee when a contractor assigns its right of payment from the owner to the lender as security for a loan and the owner makes payments directly to the lender until the contractor’s debt is repaid …, First Niagara received no such assignment here.

…[T]he court erred in determining as a matter of law that it had actual notice that it was receiving diverted Lien Law trust funds, and thus could be held liable under Lien Law § 72 (1).  …

…[T]he court erred in applying a constructive notice standard in determining that First Niagara was not a holder in due course, and thus could be liable under Lien Law § 72 (1).  As the Court of Appeals noted in I-T-E Imperial Corp.—Empire Div. v Bankers Trust Co. (51 NY2d 811), “[w]ith the adoption . . . of the Uniform Commercial Code, the concept of notice under [UCC] article 3 (and by analogy under article 4 as well . . . ) has, as we have held in Chemical Bank of Rochester v Haskell (51 NY2d 85), been changed from an objective to a subjective standard, and that change must be deemed to have amended the Lien Law as well” (id. at 813-814…).

Furthermore, “[t]he purpose of UCC 3-304 (7)—unique to New York and Virginia—[is] to require that questions of notice . . . be determined by a subjective test of actual knowledge rather than an objective test which might involve constructive knowledge” … . Price Trucking Corp… v AAA Environmental Inc…m 1088, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

Decedent’s Acknowledgment of Paternity of Nonmarital Child Precluded Objections to Distribution by Sibling

In finding that the decedent’s brother did not have standing to raise objections to the distribution of an estate because the decedent had sufficiently acknowledged paternity of at least one nonmarital child, the Second Department wrote:

…[T]he appellant, in his capacity as a sibling of the decedent, had no standing to raise objections unless he could be considered a distributee of the decedent’s estate. Siblings, who are defined as issue of the decedent’s parents, are only distributees if the decedent dies without issue (see EPTL 4-1.1[a][3]). If the decedent here was survived by any issue, the appellant, in his capacity as a sibling of the decedent, does not have standing as a person interested in the estate (see SCPA 103[39]).

Since the decedent died after April 28, 2010, EPTL 4-1.2, as amended in 2010, is applicable (see L 2010, ch 64). That provision states, among other things, that a nonmarital child may inherit from his or her father and paternal kindred, if paternity was established during the decedent’s lifetime or “paternity has been established by clear and convincing evidence, which may include, but is not limited to: (i) evidence derived from a genetic marker test, or (ii) evidence that the father openly and notoriously acknowledged the child as his own” (emphasis added). The affidavits in this case demonstrated that the decedent had at least one nonmarital child whom he openly and notoriously acknowledged as his own. As this Court noted …, “[t]o establish an open and notorious acknowledgment of paternity, there is no requirement that the putative father disclose paternity to all his friends and relatives. An acknowledgment of paternity in the community in which the child lives is sufficient.” Matter of Reape, 2013 NY Slip Op 07048, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

, ,

Malpractice Action for Depression-Treatment Prior to Suicide Is Actionable

The Second Department determined a cause of action for malpractice in treating plaintiff’s decedent for depression prior to her committing suicide should not have been dismissed:

Here, the complaint sought damages for conscious pain and suffering arising from Family Services’ alleged negligence in treating the decedent’s depression during the period between October 19, 2005, and the time of her death about 10 days later. That cause of action states a cognizable legal theory sounding in professional malpractice … .

Further, EPTL 11-3.2(b), referred to as the “survival statute” …, provides that “[n]o cause of action for injury to person . . . is lost because of the death of the person in whose favor the cause of action existed.” A cause of action based on personal injuries which survives the death of the decedent is distinct from a cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death … . Accordingly, the cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering predicated on alleged acts of professional malpractice committed between October 19, 2005, and October 28, 2005, survived the decedent’s death, and damages for such pain and suffering may be recoverable by her estate … .  Stolarski v Family Servs of Westchester Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 06850, 2nd Dept 10-23-13

 

,

Conveyance Was For Convenience (Getting a Loan) and Was Not a Gift—Property Therefore Remained in Decedent’s Estate

The Second Department determined Surrogate’s Court correctly found that the conveyance of a one-third interest in property was for the decedent’s convenience and was not a gift.  Therefore, the one-third interest was in the decedent’s estate:

The petitioner presented evidence establishing that the decedent’s conveyance was for his convenience, and was designed to obtain a refinance mortgage loan on the property at a more favorable interest rate than would have been offered had decedent’s name remained on the title. The petitioner also presented evidence that, after the refinancing was completed, the decedent’s one-third interest in the subject real property was to be reconveyed to him. …

“In a turnover proceeding, the burden of establishing that the property was that of the decedent rests with the petitioner, and once that burden is met, it shifts to the respondent to establish that it was a gift” … . Here, the petitioner met her initial burden of establishing that the one-third interest in the subject real property belonged to the decedent. The petitioner’s proof included, inter alia, deposition testimony given by [decedent’s brother] George in a related proceeding, wherein he acknowledged that the decedent’s one-third interest was to be reconveyed to the decedent after the refinancing. [Decedent’s sister] Elaine failed to come forward with clear and convincing proof that the decedent intended to make a gift of his interest in the subject real property… .  Matter of Voyiatgis, 2013 NY Slip Op 06700, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

, ,

Right of First Refusal Not Triggered by Partition Action

In a partition action, the Fourth Department determined the agreement between the parties was a right of first refusal, not an option to purchase, which was not triggered by the partition action.  The court explained the operative law:

Plaintiff and Waite [one of the defendants] are tenants in common and acquired the property at issue by an executor’s deed pursuant to the settlement of their mother’s estate.  In settling that estate, plaintiff, Waite and the other named defendants signed a settlement agreement providing that plaintiff and Waite “agree to grant to [each of the other named defendants] the option to purchase the . . . property, in the event that [plaintiff and Waite], either jointly or severally, determine to sell, assign or transfer the . . . property to someone other than each other.  The option price shall be [$120,000] plus the costs of any improvements made by [plaintiff and Waite] to the premises subsequent to [their] purchase of the premises.  Said option may be prepared in recordable form by any or all of the [other named defendants] at their own cost and expense, and [plaintiff and Waite] will execute any said recordable option.  Upon receipt of an offer to purchase the premises, except from [each other], [plaintiff and Waite] shall notify each of the [other named defendants] then living, in writing of the proposed sale of the premises, and the [other named defendants] shall have sixty (60) days to exercise their option as granted herein.” * * *

We conclude that the right bestowed by the settlement agreement … is a right of first refusal, not an option to purchase, despite the use of the term “option” therein …, and thus that Supreme Court mistakenly treated the contractual right as an option to purchase.  “A right of first refusal is a dormant right that is triggered when an owner decides to sell the property to a third party at an agreed-upon price” …, and those are the applicable facts set forth in the settlement agreement.

We agree with Waite on her appeal that the court erred in determining that the contractual right was triggered upon plaintiff’s commencement of the instant action, for partition and sale.  It must first be determined in a partition action whether the property may be partitioned, i.e., divided among the owners in some fashion, without great prejudice to them, and “partition sale” is a secondary consideration only in the event that partition greatly prejudices the owners (see RPAPL 901 [1]…).  Thus, commencement of the partition action did not trigger the right of first refusal inasmuch as a partition, as opposed to a partition sale, would not result in a transfer of the property to a third party.  Furthermore, no offer of purchase from a third party triggered either the right of first refusal or the contractual obligation of plaintiff or Waite pursuant to the settlement agreement or recorded document. Tuminno v Waite…, 915, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

 

Criteria for Denial of Trustee Commission for Misconduct Explained (Commission Was Not Denied Here)

The First Department explained the criteria for determining whether a trustee can be denied an annual commission for misconduct.  The court ultimately concluded the commission should not be denied in this case:

We conclude that courts have the discretion to take into consideration all of a trustee’s misconduct in determining the grant of annual commission, even conduct that occurred after the period applicable to the commission. Although there are no appellate cases on point, no New York case holds otherwise. As a basic principle, the Surrogate has broad discretion to deny commission to a trustee if the trustee has engaged in misconduct … . In determining if a commission should be denied, misconduct that is not directly related to the commission being sought may be taken into consideration … . The Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 243 supports this conclusion with a multi-factor analysis (Comment c). Among the factors to be considered under the Restatement in determining if a commission should be denied are whether the trustee acted in good faith, if the misconduct related to management of the whole trust and if the trustee completed services of value to the trust (id.). We conclude, therefore, it is within the court’s discretion to determine whether the trustee’s later misconduct bars her from receiving commission.

Trustees can be denied commission “where their acts involve bad faith, a complete indifference to their fiduciary obligations or some other act that constitutes malfeasance or significant misfeasance” …. The denial of a commission, however, should not be “in the nature of an additional penalty” (Restatement 243, Comment a). Rather, it should be based on the trustee’s failure to properly serve the trust, not designed as an additional punishment … . Indeed, even the beneficiaries in this case state that it will be rare that a trustee’s later misconduct will serve as the basis for a denial of commission. Matter of Gregory Stewart Trust, 2013 NY Slip Op 06079, 1st Dept 9-26-13

 

,

Husband’s Contribution to Purchase of Home by Wife’s Parents Constituted a Constructive Trust

In a divorce action, the Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s determination that the husband’s [Henn’s] contribution toward the purchase of a house constituted a constructive trust.  The parties separated before Henn moved into the home.  The wife’s [Tyree’s] parents [the Raffas] contributed some money and purchased the home for Henn and Tyree, both of whom also contributed funds toward the purchase.  In concluding Henn’s contribution constituted a constructive trust, the court wrote:

Here, the Supreme Court correctly found that the first element relevant to imposing a constructive trust was satisfied, as Henn and the Raffas were related through marriage and they pooled their resources to purchase the subject premises … . Henn satisfied the second element by demonstrating that the Raffas implicitly promised to convey the premises to him and Tyree … . He satisfied the third element, which requires a showing that he acted in reliance on the promise, by establishing that he gave $58,500 to Samuel J. Raffa, and that Samuel J. Raffa used that money to purchase the premises … . As for the fourth element, which requires a showing of unjust enrichment flowing from the breach of the promise, the evidence adduced at trial established that Henn never moved into the premises or acquired a legal interest therein. To the contrary, he and Tyree separated the very month that the premises were acquired by the Raffas, and Tyree commenced this divorce action just a few months later. The Raffas remained the sole owners of the premises, and they did not return Henn’s $58,500. In view of this evidence, there is no basis upon which to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination… . Tyree v Henn, 2013 NY Slip Op 05895, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

, ,

Defendant in Medical Malpractice Action Should Have Been Allowed to Amend His Answer to Add Statute of Limitations Affirmative Defense

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to amend his answer by adding the passing of the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.  The Second Department explained:

Here, it is undisputed that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to a cause of action alleging wrongful death began to run on August 14, 2007, the date of the decedent’s death (see EPTL 5-4.1), and that the plaintiff commenced the second action, in which Lehman was a named defendant, more than two years after the decedent’s death. Accordingly, Lehman’s proposed affirmative defense of the statute of limitations as to so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for wrongful death was not palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit on its face, and the plaintiff’s contentions regarding the relation back doctrine (see CPLR 203[b]) did not warrant the denial of Lehman’s motion. Consequently, as there was no evidence that the amendment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff, the Supreme Court should have granted Lehman’s motion for leave to amend his answer without conducting a further examination into the ultimate merits of the proposed amendment … . “If [the plaintiff] wishes to test the merits of the proposed added . . . defense, [the plaintiff] may later move for summary judgment upon a proper showing” … . Carroll v Motola, 2013 NY Slip Op 05728, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

,

Method of Service of Citation Should Be Calculated to Provide Notice Based Upon Facts Known To Court

The Second Department determined a decree (admitting decedent’s will to probate) issued by Surrogate’s Court should have been vacated on the ground that decedent’s daughter (Ross) was never properly served with the citation and, therefore, the court never obtained personal jurisdiction over her.  The Second Department explained that Surrogate Court should have fashioned a method of service, based upon the unique facts of the case known to the court, that was best calculated to notify Ross:

An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections”… . In making a determination as to whether notice is “reasonably calculated,” the unique information about an intended recipient must be considered, “regardless of whether a statutory scheme is reasonably calculated to provide notice in the ordinary case” … . Here, given that the Surrogate’s Court was aware that Ross and her family would be away from her home in Sloatsburg until sometime in late September 2008, and was vacationing in Long Beach Island during that time, and given that there was no indication that Ross’s address in Long Beach Island was unavailable, in order for notice of the probate proceeding to be reasonably calculated to reach Ross, the Surrogate’s Court should have at least directed that the supplemental citation be mailed to Ross’s address in Long Beach Island, instead of solely directing that the supplemental citation be mailed to Ross’s address in Sloatsburg.  Matter of Skolnick, 2013 NY Slip Op 05463, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

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