In re Tognino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tognino

87 A.D.3d 1152, 929 N.Y.2d 884

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.3d 1152 (In re Tognino) 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 Tognino, 87 A.D.3d 1152, 929 N.Y.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[1153]*1153“Merely because the order appealed from contains language or reasoning that a party deems adverse to its interests does not furnish ‘a basis for standing to take an appeal’ ” (Castaldi v 39 Winfield Assoc., LLC, 22 AD3d 780, 781 [2005], quoting Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co., 68 NY2d 465, 472-473 [1986]). The appellant is not aggrieved by the statement in the order appealed from that if he is unsuccessful in contesting the amendments to the decedent’s living trust he will forfeit his bequest.

The Surrogate’s Court properly granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was to dismiss the petition since the petitioner failed to allege that any provision of the trust was ambiguous and, therefore, failed to state a cause of action for the construction of the decedent’s living trust (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; cf. Williams v Williams, 36 AD3d 693 [2007]).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P, Eng, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

[1153]*1153“Merely because the order appealed from contains language or reasoning that a party deems adverse to its interests does not furnish ‘a basis for standing to take an appeal’ ” (Castaldi v 39 Winfield Assoc., LLC, 22 AD3d 780, 781 [2005], quoting Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co., 68 NY2d 465, 472-473 [1986]). The appellant is not aggrieved by the statement in the order appealed from that if he is unsuccessful in contesting the amendments to the decedent’s living trust he will forfeit his bequest.

The Surrogate’s Court properly granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was to dismiss the petition since the petitioner failed to allege that any provision of the trust was ambiguous and, therefore, failed to state a cause of action for the construction of the decedent’s living trust (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; cf. Williams v Williams, 36 AD3d 693 [2007]).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P, Eng, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 1152, 929 N.Y.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tognino-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack