In Re the Estate of Haines

2017 NY Slip Op 9068, 156 A.D.3d 1471, 65 N.Y.S.3d 862

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: December 22, 2017
• Docket: 1488 CA 16-02319
• Status: Published

Opinion

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Steuben County (Marianne Furfure, S.), entered September 15, 2016. The decree, among other things, awarded petitioners the sum of $868,892.96 against respondent Holly West.

It is hereby ordered that the decree so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioners, the coexecutors of decedent’s estate, commenced this proceeding seeking, inter alia, an order directing respondent to return funds to the estate. Respondent asserted a counterclaim seeking an order directing petitioners to return to her shares in certain corporations that were allegedly the subject of an inter vivos gift from decedent to respondent. We reject respondent’s contention that Surrogate’s Court erred in determining, following a trial, that she failed to meet her burden of establishing a valid inter vivos gift. Although there is no dispute that decedent endorsed in blank three stock certificates in the presence of the parties, respondent presented no evidence that there was actual or constructive delivery of those certificates to her (see generally Gruen v Gruen, 68 NY2d 48, 56-57 [1986]; Bader v Digney [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1290, 1291 [4th Dept 2008]). Respondent’s remaining contentions are not preserved for our review inasmuch as she failed to present to the Surrogate the specific arguments that she now raises on appeal (see generally Nary v Jonientz [appeal No. 2], 110 AD3d 1448, 1448 [4th Dept 2013]).

Present—Whalen, P.J., Smith, Carni, Troutman and Winslow, JJ.