In re the Estate of Perlman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Perlman

278 A.D.2d 79, 717 N.Y.S.2d 579, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13061

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 79 (In re the Estate of Perlman) 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 Perlman, 278 A.D.2d 79, 717 N.Y.S.2d 579, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about July 7, 1999, which granted petitioner executor’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing appellant’s objections to an accounting, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The assets of the subject estate were not permitted to languish by petitioner executor during the period prior to the estate’s retention of a money management firm. Indeed, the record clearly demonstrated that stock held by the estate significantly appreciated during the period in question. Also without merit were appellant’s unsupported claims that real and personal property owned by the estate were undervalued when distributed. In addition, although appellant asserts an entitlement to funds from a testamentary trust of which he was beneficiary for the purpose of hiring a lawyer and an accountant, the subject will expressly provided that the trust was to be invaded “for bona fide emergencies only,” and the Surrogate correctly found that there was no emergency warranting invasion of the trust, particularly since appellant received ample income from the trust and possessed other valuable assets. We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about July 7, 1999, which granted petitioner executor’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing appellant’s objections to an accounting, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The assets of the subject estate were not permitted to languish by petitioner executor during the period prior to the estate’s retention of a money management firm. Indeed, the record clearly demonstrated that stock held by the estate significantly appreciated during the period in question. Also without merit were appellant’s unsupported claims that real and personal property owned by the estate were undervalued when distributed. In addition, although appellant asserts an entitlement to funds from a testamentary trust of which he was beneficiary for the purpose of hiring a lawyer and an accountant, the subject will expressly provided that the trust was to be invaded “for bona fide emergencies only,” and the Surrogate correctly found that there was no emergency warranting invasion of the trust, particularly since appellant received ample income from the trust and possessed other valuable assets. We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 79, 717 N.Y.S.2d 579, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-perlman-nyappdiv-2000.