In re the Accounting of Bankers Trust Co.

New York Court of Appeals

In re the Accounting of Bankers Trust Co.

466 N.E.2d 144, 62 N.Y.2d 821, 477 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4383

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 5, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 466 N.E.2d 144 (In re the Accounting of Bankers Trust Co.) 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 the Accounting of Bankers Trust Co., 466 N.E.2d 144, 62 N.Y.2d 821, 477 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4383 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs to respondent payable by all appellants jointly, for the reasons stated in the opinion Per Curiam in that court (93 AD2d 583).

In view of the arguments pressed in our court we add that, even if this trustee had settled on a plan (perhaps more accurately, an objective) to effect the prompt liquidation of the Coleman shares as opportunity afforded, nothing in the prudent man standard required, in this instance, continuing adherence to that plan or precluded its modification or abandonment. The standard by which the performance of the trustee is to be judicially measured is whether, in all the circumstances including in this instance the express authorization to the trustee “in its absolute discretion” to retain the Coleman shares, the trustee exercised “such diligence and such prudence in the care and management [of the fund], as in general, prudent men of discretion and intelligence in such matters, employ in their own like affairs” (King v Talbot, 40 NY 76, 85-86; cited with approval Matter of Bank of N. Y., 35 NY2d 512, 518-519). The determination of the Appellate Division that there was no breach of that standard in this case comports with the weight of the evidence.

[825]*825Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum, with costs to respondent payable by all appellants jointly.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs to respondent payable by all appellants jointly, for the reasons stated in the opinion Per Curiam in that court (93 AD2d 583).

In view of the arguments pressed in our court we add that, even if this trustee had settled on a plan (perhaps more accurately, an objective) to effect the prompt liquidation of the Coleman shares as opportunity afforded, nothing in the prudent man standard required, in this instance, continuing adherence to that plan or precluded its modification or abandonment. The standard by which the performance of the trustee is to be judicially measured is whether, in all the circumstances including in this instance the express authorization to the trustee “in its absolute discretion” to retain the Coleman shares, the trustee exercised “such diligence and such prudence in the care and management [of the fund], as in general, prudent men of discretion and intelligence in such matters, employ in their own like affairs” (King v Talbot, 40 NY 76, 85-86; cited with approval Matter of Bank of N. Y., 35 NY2d 512, 518-519). The determination of the Appellate Division that there was no breach of that standard in this case comports with the weight of the evidence.

[825]*825Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum, with costs to respondent payable by all appellants jointly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

466 N.E.2d 144, 62 N.Y.2d 821, 477 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-accounting-of-bankers-trust-co-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack