Alexander v. Dolen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alexander v. Dolen

27 A.D.2d 710, 276 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4936

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 2, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 710 (Alexander v. Dolen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. Dolen, 27 A.D.2d 710, 276 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

The final order entered [711]*711November 1, 1966, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of adjudging that paragraph “ First (e) ” of the trust instrument, dated May 31, 1938, as construed, does not violate the Rule against Perpetuities, and as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to all parties filing briefs, payable out of the trust estate. The trust instrument provides the income is to be applied to the support and maintenance of the settlor and his wife, and the survivor of them; and that the principal is to be paid to the survivor’s legal representatives. The wife survived. She died testate on November 9, 1965. Her will, probated January 26,1966, bequeaths the residue of her estate, including the trust fund, to various persons. The possibility that no executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased wife would be appointed within 21 years of her death does not operate to make applicable the Rule against Perpetuities. (Hope v. Brewer, 136 N. Y. 126, 135; Beardsley v. Hotchkinss, 96 N. Y. 201, 214; Robert v. Corning, 89 N. Y. 225, 238; Manice v. Manice, 43 N. Y. 303, 365; Matter of Adler, 193 Misc. 19, 23, 24; Maynard, v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 119 Misc. 503, 505, mod. 208 App. Div. 112, affd. 238 N. Y. 592.) Subdivision 4 of section 11-b of the Personal Property Law, effective April 12, 1960 is largely a codification of the common law reflected in the cited authorities. Concur ■—■ Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, McNally and Witmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The final order entered [711]*711November 1, 1966, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of adjudging that paragraph “ First (e) ” of the trust instrument, dated May 31, 1938, as construed, does not violate the Rule against Perpetuities, and as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to all parties filing briefs, payable out of the trust estate. The trust instrument provides the income is to be applied to the support and maintenance of the settlor and his wife, and the survivor of them; and that the principal is to be paid to the survivor’s legal representatives. The wife survived. She died testate on November 9, 1965. Her will, probated January 26,1966, bequeaths the residue of her estate, including the trust fund, to various persons. The possibility that no executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased wife would be appointed within 21 years of her death does not operate to make applicable the Rule against Perpetuities. (Hope v. Brewer, 136 N. Y. 126, 135; Beardsley v. Hotchkinss, 96 N. Y. 201, 214; Robert v. Corning, 89 N. Y. 225, 238; Manice v. Manice, 43 N. Y. 303, 365; Matter of Adler, 193 Misc. 19, 23, 24; Maynard, v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 119 Misc. 503, 505, mod. 208 App. Div. 112, affd. 238 N. Y. 592.) Subdivision 4 of section 11-b of the Personal Property Law, effective April 12, 1960 is largely a codification of the common law reflected in the cited authorities. Concur ■—■ Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, McNally and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 710, 276 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-dolen-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack