In re the Estate of Keating

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Keating

71 A.D.2d 786, 419 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12998

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.2d 786 (In re the Estate of Keating) 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 Keating, 71 A.D.2d 786, 419 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—Decree unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In his last will, testator, [787]*787a former Judge of the New York Court of Appeals and, at the time of his death, a New Jersey domiciliary, exercised a general power of appointment granted to him under the will of his first wife. Security Trust Company of Rochester, the New York trustee under the first wife’s will, brought this proceeding in Monroe County Surrogate’s Court to settle its accounts as trustee and, as an integral part of that relief, determine the amount of Federal estate tax chargeable to the trust corpus. Mary Keating, testator’s surviving wife and the New Jersey executrix of his will admitted to probate in New Jersey, answered and requested that the Monroe County Surrogate defer the question of tax apportionment and leave that determination to the courts of New Jersey. Instead, however, the Surrogate apportioned the tax, settled the accounts and denied the request to charge her counsel fees to the. trust in the proceeding pending before him. We cannot conclude that the Surrogate abused his discretion by refusing to defer to the courts of New Jersey. This case involved a New York trust and a New York trustee. The parties concede that the trust accounting was required to be brought in this State. There were present sufficient New York contacts to justify the Surrogate’s action in deciding the substantive issues. Paragraph Sixth of the will establishes the amount of tax which the trust shall bear in clear and unambiguous terms. The Surrogate’s determination that the literal interpretation of this paragraph correctly expressed testator’s intent is amply supported by testator’s background as a former jurist familiar with tax apportionment (see, e. g., Matter of King; 22 NY2d 456). Finally, it was within the Surrogate’s discretion to determine that the trust not be charged for services of counsel for the Keating estate (see EPTL 2-1.8 par [h]). (Appeal from decree of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court—judicial settlement.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Callahan and Moule, JJ.

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

—Decree unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In his last will, testator, [787]*787a former Judge of the New York Court of Appeals and, at the time of his death, a New Jersey domiciliary, exercised a general power of appointment granted to him under the will of his first wife. Security Trust Company of Rochester, the New York trustee under the first wife’s will, brought this proceeding in Monroe County Surrogate’s Court to settle its accounts as trustee and, as an integral part of that relief, determine the amount of Federal estate tax chargeable to the trust corpus. Mary Keating, testator’s surviving wife and the New Jersey executrix of his will admitted to probate in New Jersey, answered and requested that the Monroe County Surrogate defer the question of tax apportionment and leave that determination to the courts of New Jersey. Instead, however, the Surrogate apportioned the tax, settled the accounts and denied the request to charge her counsel fees to the. trust in the proceeding pending before him. We cannot conclude that the Surrogate abused his discretion by refusing to defer to the courts of New Jersey. This case involved a New York trust and a New York trustee. The parties concede that the trust accounting was required to be brought in this State. There were present sufficient New York contacts to justify the Surrogate’s action in deciding the substantive issues. Paragraph Sixth of the will establishes the amount of tax which the trust shall bear in clear and unambiguous terms. The Surrogate’s determination that the literal interpretation of this paragraph correctly expressed testator’s intent is amply supported by testator’s background as a former jurist familiar with tax apportionment (see, e. g., Matter of King; 22 NY2d 456). Finally, it was within the Surrogate’s discretion to determine that the trust not be charged for services of counsel for the Keating estate (see EPTL 2-1.8 par [h]). (Appeal from decree of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court—judicial settlement.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Callahan and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 786, 419 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-keating-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack