Deneny v. Van Rossem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deneny v. Van Rossem

115 A.D.3d 623, 985 N.Y.S.2d 871

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 623 (Deneny v. Van Rossem) 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

Deneny v. Van Rossem, 115 A.D.3d 623, 985 N.Y.S.2d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered May 9, 2012, granting the petition to remove respondent (Van Rossem) as co-trustee of the 518 Trust and denying her cross motion for an accounting and to terminate the trust, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, and the matter remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

It was not a proper exercise of discretion for the court to remove Van Rossem as co-trustee without a hearing (see Hoopes v Bruno, 128 AD2d 991 [3d Dept 1987]). Sharp factual disputes exist as to who was responsible for the finances of the building and whether Van Rossem interfered with the proper administration of the trust. Thus, a hearing is required on the issues raised both in the petition and Van Rossem’s cross motion to terminate the trust.

Since petitioner acknowledged that Van Rossem was entitled to an accounting, so much of her cross motion as sought such relief should have been granted.

Concur — Moskowitz, J.E, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered May 9, 2012, granting the petition to remove respondent (Van Rossem) as co-trustee of the 518 Trust and denying her cross motion for an accounting and to terminate the trust, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, and the matter remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

It was not a proper exercise of discretion for the court to remove Van Rossem as co-trustee without a hearing (see Hoopes v Bruno, 128 AD2d 991 [3d Dept 1987]). Sharp factual disputes exist as to who was responsible for the finances of the building and whether Van Rossem interfered with the proper administration of the trust. Thus, a hearing is required on the issues raised both in the petition and Van Rossem’s cross motion to terminate the trust.

Since petitioner acknowledged that Van Rossem was entitled to an accounting, so much of her cross motion as sought such relief should have been granted.

Concur — Moskowitz, J.E, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 623, 985 N.Y.S.2d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deneny-v-van-rossem-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack