In re the Estate of Lenobel

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Lenobel

37 Misc. 2d 288, 234 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2220

DecidedNovember 29, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 37 Misc. 2d 288 (In re the Estate of Lenobel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court 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 Lenobel, 37 Misc. 2d 288, 234 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2220 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Christopher C. McGrath, S.

The decedent in her lifetime was the trustee of three trusts, two inter vivos and one testamentary.

The petitioners, asserting their title to the specific property constituting the corpus of the respective trusts admittedly in [289]*289the possession of the administrator, have brought these proceedings pursuant to section 206-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act to obtain delivery of such assets.

The administrator has filed an answer in which he does not dispute the title of the petitioners but denies that they are entitled to delivery of the property and alleges that the pending proceedings brought by him in the Supreme Court and in the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, to settle the accounts of the decedent as trustee of the various trusts will determine the rights of the petitioners to possession. He also moves to dismiss these proceedings.

It is fundamental that a trustee or his representative has a right to have his accounts judicially settled and to be discharged before relinquishing control of the trust property (Bolten v. Wemett, 3 A D 2d 708). Moreover, with respect to the testamentary trust full relief may be obtained by the petitioners in the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, pursuant to section 257 of the Surrogate’s Court Act which authorizes the Surrogate to make “ a distribution, in whole or in part ” upon the accounting, if he finds that there can he such a distribution. Since this power conferred upon the Surrogate by statute is inherent in the Supreme Court, similar relief may be obtained in the proceedings affecting the inter vivos trusts.

The Court of Appeals has stated in Colson v. Pelgram (259 N. Y. 370, 375): “ It is also the general rule that where separate actions have been instituted between the same parties in reference to the same subject-matter in courts having concurrent jurisdiction the court which first obtains jurisdiction with adequate power to administer full justice should continue to exercise it. (Schuehle v. Reiman, 86 N. Y. 270; Garlock v. Vandevort, 128 N. Y. 374.) ”

Accordingly, the motions to dismiss the petitions are granted.

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

Christopher C. McGrath, S.

The decedent in her lifetime was the trustee of three trusts, two inter vivos and one testamentary.

The petitioners, asserting their title to the specific property constituting the corpus of the respective trusts admittedly in [289]*289the possession of the administrator, have brought these proceedings pursuant to section 206-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act to obtain delivery of such assets.

The administrator has filed an answer in which he does not dispute the title of the petitioners but denies that they are entitled to delivery of the property and alleges that the pending proceedings brought by him in the Supreme Court and in the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, to settle the accounts of the decedent as trustee of the various trusts will determine the rights of the petitioners to possession. He also moves to dismiss these proceedings.

It is fundamental that a trustee or his representative has a right to have his accounts judicially settled and to be discharged before relinquishing control of the trust property (Bolten v. Wemett, 3 A D 2d 708). Moreover, with respect to the testamentary trust full relief may be obtained by the petitioners in the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, pursuant to section 257 of the Surrogate’s Court Act which authorizes the Surrogate to make “ a distribution, in whole or in part ” upon the accounting, if he finds that there can he such a distribution. Since this power conferred upon the Surrogate by statute is inherent in the Supreme Court, similar relief may be obtained in the proceedings affecting the inter vivos trusts.

The Court of Appeals has stated in Colson v. Pelgram (259 N. Y. 370, 375): “ It is also the general rule that where separate actions have been instituted between the same parties in reference to the same subject-matter in courts having concurrent jurisdiction the court which first obtains jurisdiction with adequate power to administer full justice should continue to exercise it. (Schuehle v. Reiman, 86 N. Y. 270; Garlock v. Vandevort, 128 N. Y. 374.) ”

Accordingly, the motions to dismiss the petitions are granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Misc. 2d 288, 234 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-lenobel-nysurct-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack