In re Bettie Rosen Irrevocable Trust

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Bettie Rosen Irrevocable Trust

249 A.D.2d 469, 671 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4226

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

DecidedApril 20, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 469 (In re Bettie Rosen Irrevocable Trust) 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

In re Bettie Rosen Irrevocable Trust, 249 A.D.2d 469, 671 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to rescind and cancel a trust, Sharon Rogoff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated June 6, 1996, as granted partial summary judgment to the petitioner.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

An ambiguous devise of the property in a will or a trust may be interpreted or construed by a court, but a missing devise cannot be inserted (see, Dreyer v Reisman, 202 NY 476; see also, Matter of Durkin, 165 Misc 366). Since the grantor had no obligation to fund the trust, and the trust instrument failed to set forth the property intended to be included in the trust res, the Surrogate’s Court correctly granted partial summary judgment to the petitioner. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to rescind and cancel a trust, Sharon Rogoff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated June 6, 1996, as granted partial summary judgment to the petitioner.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

An ambiguous devise of the property in a will or a trust may be interpreted or construed by a court, but a missing devise cannot be inserted (see, Dreyer v Reisman, 202 NY 476; see also, Matter of Durkin, 165 Misc 366). Since the grantor had no obligation to fund the trust, and the trust instrument failed to set forth the property intended to be included in the trust res, the Surrogate’s Court correctly granted partial summary judgment to the petitioner. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 469, 671 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bettie-rosen-irrevocable-trust-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack