Cohn v. United States Trust Co.

127 A.D.2d 523, 512 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42999
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 19, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 523 (Cohn v. United States Trust Co.) 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
Cohn v. United States Trust Co., 127 A.D.2d 523, 512 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. White, J.), entered January 25, 1985, which dismissed plaintiff Edward Cohn’s amended complaint with prejudice, is unanimously modified, on the law and [524]*524the facts, to the extent of granting plaintiff leave to serve, within 20 days of service of this order, an amended complaint upon defendants, seeking return of the $5,000 down payment, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Special Term correctly dismissed plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the letter of intent to sell him the shares of a cooperative apartment and its furniture, which made up the residuary estate of Sidonia Feltenstein Graham, was signed by beneficiaries of the estate-testamentary trust before any letters testamentary were issued. On their own, these allegations negate the existence of any valid cause of action for breach of contract, since beneficiaries of a trust do not take a legal estate in the trust property (EPTL 7-2.1 [a]), and executors of a will have no power to dispose of estate property prior to obtaining letters testamentary (EPTL 11-1.3). However, defendants’ counterclaim, seeking damages of $5,000, and plaintiffs assertion that his $5,000 cash down payment should have been returned raise valid questions of fact as to the whereabouts of the $5,000 down payment and who is entitled to it. Accordingly, it was error for Special Term to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, without granting plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint seeking return of the $5,000 down payment. Accordingly, we so modify the judgment. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Asch and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Planty (Hanlon)
2024 NY Slip Op 50062(U) (Queens Surrogate's Court, 2024)
Patterson v. Patterson
S.D. New York, 2022
Murphy v. EEG Enterprises, Inc.
245 A.D.2d 495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Lawyers' Fund v. Gateway State Bank
239 A.D.2d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Modjeska v. Greer
233 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Wynyard v. Beiny
214 A.D.2d 344 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In Re Rubin
160 B.R. 269 (S.D. New York, 1993)
Bigaj v. Gehl
167 A.D.2d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
International Chimney Corp. v. 26 West Spring Street Associates
167 A.D.2d 816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A.D.2d 523, 512 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohn-v-united-states-trust-co-nyappdiv-1987.