In re the Estate of Cohn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Cohn

72 A.D.3d 617, 898 N.Y.S.2d 849

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

DecidedApril 29, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 617 (In re the Estate of Cohn) 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 the Estate of Cohn, 72 A.D.3d 617, 898 N.Y.S.2d 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, S.), entered April 30, 2009, which, in a turnover proceeding seeking collection of promissory notes given by respondent Paula Ann Hallman to the decedent, granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment and denied respondent’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The tax returns and Surrogate’s Court documents executed by respondent as an estate fiduciary conclusively establish her ratification of the subject notes, precluding her claims that the [618]*618notes were the product of duress exerted by one of her coexecutors and that the transfers recited in the notes were actually gifts, not loans (see Joseph F. Egan, Inc. v City of New York, 17 NY2d 90, 98 [1966]; Morad v Morad, 27 AD3d 626, 627-628 [2006]). In any event, as the Surrogate also held, respondent fails to raise issues of fact as to donative intent. We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., McGuire, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, S.), entered April 30, 2009, which, in a turnover proceeding seeking collection of promissory notes given by respondent Paula Ann Hallman to the decedent, granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment and denied respondent’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The tax returns and Surrogate’s Court documents executed by respondent as an estate fiduciary conclusively establish her ratification of the subject notes, precluding her claims that the [618]*618notes were the product of duress exerted by one of her coexecutors and that the transfers recited in the notes were actually gifts, not loans (see Joseph F. Egan, Inc. v City of New York, 17 NY2d 90, 98 [1966]; Morad v Morad, 27 AD3d 626, 627-628 [2006]). In any event, as the Surrogate also held, respondent fails to raise issues of fact as to donative intent. We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., McGuire, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 617, 898 N.Y.S.2d 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-cohn-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack