In re the Estate of King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of King

194 A.D.2d 726, 599 N.Y.S.2d 295

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

DecidedJune 21, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 726 (In re the Estate of King) 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 King, 194 A.D.2d 726, 599 N.Y.S.2d 295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In two related proceedings for a compulsory accounting by A. William King with respect to the estate of Martin H. King and for the revocation of letters testamentary issued to A. William King with respect to the estate of Vivien King, A. William King appeals from (1) an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated February 14, 1992, which denied A. William King’s motion to dismiss the accounting proceeding as time-barred; and (2) two orders of the same court, both dated January 26, 1993, which granted the petitioner’s motion to disqualify the law firm of Morrison, Cohen, Singer & Weinstein as counsel for A. William King in both proceedings.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant personally.

The appellant argues that the petitioner’s application for a compulsory accounting with respect to the estate of Martin H. King is barred by the Statute of Limitations. We disagree. There are questions of fact as to whether the appellant is a de facto fiduciary under the will of his deceased father. Assuming, arguendo, that the appellant is in fact a fiduciary, we find that he did not establish as a matter of law that he openly repudiated his fiduciary obligations. Thus, he did not establish that the proceeding is time-barred (see, Matter of Behr, 191 AD2d 431; Matter of Sakow, 146 Misc 2d 672; Saldi v Saldi, 32 Misc 2d 516).

[727]*727Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Surrogate’s Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in disqualifying the law firm of Morrison, Cohen, Singer & Weinstein from representing the appellant in both proceedings on the basis of an appearance of impropriety (see, Matter of Hof, 102 AD2d 591, 595).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Miller, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In two related proceedings for a compulsory accounting by A. William King with respect to the estate of Martin H. King and for the revocation of letters testamentary issued to A. William King with respect to the estate of Vivien King, A. William King appeals from (1) an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated February 14, 1992, which denied A. William King’s motion to dismiss the accounting proceeding as time-barred; and (2) two orders of the same court, both dated January 26, 1993, which granted the petitioner’s motion to disqualify the law firm of Morrison, Cohen, Singer & Weinstein as counsel for A. William King in both proceedings.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant personally.

The appellant argues that the petitioner’s application for a compulsory accounting with respect to the estate of Martin H. King is barred by the Statute of Limitations. We disagree. There are questions of fact as to whether the appellant is a de facto fiduciary under the will of his deceased father. Assuming, arguendo, that the appellant is in fact a fiduciary, we find that he did not establish as a matter of law that he openly repudiated his fiduciary obligations. Thus, he did not establish that the proceeding is time-barred (see, Matter of Behr, 191 AD2d 431; Matter of Sakow, 146 Misc 2d 672; Saldi v Saldi, 32 Misc 2d 516).

[727]*727Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Surrogate’s Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in disqualifying the law firm of Morrison, Cohen, Singer & Weinstein from representing the appellant in both proceedings on the basis of an appearance of impropriety (see, Matter of Hof, 102 AD2d 591, 595).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Miller, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 726, 599 N.Y.S.2d 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-king-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack