In re the Estate of Frankel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Frankel

292 A.D.2d 526, 739 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 526 (In re the Estate of Frankel) 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 Frankel, 292 A.D.2d 526, 739 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 to discover property allegedly withheld from an estate, Wilbur F. Breslin, executor of the estate of Robert Frankel, appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated February 7, 2001, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the estate.

The Surrogate’s Court properly determined that the release executed by Wilbur F. Breslin in favor of Adele Frankel-Loeb, the decedent’s wife, as part of a settlement of various lawsuits, bound Breslin in his capacity as executor of the estate. It is well settled that a release is a contract and is subject to the laws governing contracts (see, Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556). It is equally well settled that with regard to the interpre[527]*527tation of a general release, “ ‘its meaning and coverage necessarily depend, as in the case of contracts generally, upon the controversy being settled and upon the purpose for which the release was actually given’ ” (Tarantola v Williams, 48 AD2d 552, 554, quoting Cahill v Regan, 5 NY2d 292, 299; see, Matter of Schaefer, 18 NY2d 314, 317).

Breslin executed the release four days before his appointment as successor executor of the estate, in connection with the settlement of various lawsuits involving the affairs of the decedent. Under these circumstances, and based on the evidence adduced at the trial held pursuant to CPLR 3212 (c), the Surrogate’s determination was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Binns v Billhimer, 271 AD2d 562). The court correctly found that the release had no meaning outside the surrounding litigation, and therefore was intended to release all estate claims against Adele Frankel-Loeb.

Breslin’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 to discover property allegedly withheld from an estate, Wilbur F. Breslin, executor of the estate of Robert Frankel, appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated February 7, 2001, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the estate.

The Surrogate’s Court properly determined that the release executed by Wilbur F. Breslin in favor of Adele Frankel-Loeb, the decedent’s wife, as part of a settlement of various lawsuits, bound Breslin in his capacity as executor of the estate. It is well settled that a release is a contract and is subject to the laws governing contracts (see, Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556). It is equally well settled that with regard to the interpre[527]*527tation of a general release, “ ‘its meaning and coverage necessarily depend, as in the case of contracts generally, upon the controversy being settled and upon the purpose for which the release was actually given’ ” (Tarantola v Williams, 48 AD2d 552, 554, quoting Cahill v Regan, 5 NY2d 292, 299; see, Matter of Schaefer, 18 NY2d 314, 317).

Breslin executed the release four days before his appointment as successor executor of the estate, in connection with the settlement of various lawsuits involving the affairs of the decedent. Under these circumstances, and based on the evidence adduced at the trial held pursuant to CPLR 3212 (c), the Surrogate’s determination was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Binns v Billhimer, 271 AD2d 562). The court correctly found that the release had no meaning outside the surrounding litigation, and therefore was intended to release all estate claims against Adele Frankel-Loeb.

Breslin’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 526, 739 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-frankel-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack