In re Roberts

461 N.E.2d 300, 61 N.Y.2d 782, 473 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4060
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 14, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 461 N.E.2d 300 (In re Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Roberts, 461 N.E.2d 300, 61 N.Y.2d 782, 473 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4060 (N.Y. 1984).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In 1957, the grantor created a trust providing in part that the income be applied, as the trustees saw fit, for the support and maintenance of her daughter, and permitting the trustees “in their absolute discretion” to apply all or part of the corpus for the daughter’s support and maintenance.. After the grantor’s death, the daughter was hospitalized at Kings County Hospital for a considerable period at public expense. Appellant obtained a judgment against the daughter of $111,000 for the unpaid charges and seeks to satisfy this judgment from the trust principal, now valued at approximately $45,000.

Special Term declined to order the trustees to expend the trust funds in partial satisfaction of appellant’s judgment. It found, both from the terms of the trust indenture and from the surrounding circumstances, that the grantor did not intend to exhaust the trust principal to provide for her daughter’s hospitalization; knowing of her daughter’s disability, the grantor nonetheless made no amendment of the pertinent trust provisions, which gave the trustees discretion to determine what funds would be used for her welfare and provided for remaindermen. (See Matter of Escher, 52 NY2d 1006; Restatement, Trusts 2d, § 187.) The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, and the affirmed findings [784]*784have support in the record. The trustees did not abuse their discretion as a matter of law by refusing to pay over the trust corpus to appellant.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Kaye concur; Judge Simons taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Waddell v. Boyea
2025 NY Slip Op 06232 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
MCDONALD, IDALYNN LUPPINO, MTR. OF
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
In re the Trusts for McDonald
100 A.D.3d 1349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Tutino v. Perales
153 A.D.2d 181 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
461 N.E.2d 300, 61 N.Y.2d 782, 473 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-roberts-ny-1984.