In re Trust for the Benefit of Adler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Trust for the Benefit of Adler

79 A.D.3d 426, 910 N.Y.S.2d 907

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 426 (In re Trust for the Benefit of Adler) 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 Trust for the Benefit of Adler, 79 A.D.3d 426, 910 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 5, 2009, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to an interpretation of the parties’ settlement stipulation as requiring respondent to pay petitioner the $35,000 differential in the value of two parcels of property from her own personal funds, rather than from trust funds, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and it is directed that the $35,000 be paid from trust funds.

The trust instrument unambiguously required the trustee to divide principal distributions into “equal parts” and gave the trustee discretion to allot trust assets among remainderman shares to fulfill this requirement (see Matter of Matthews Trust No. 1, 61 AD3d 511, 512 [2009], Iv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]). The trust provisions are not altered by the parties’ stipulation of settlement (see EPTL 7-2.4; Matter of Wallens, 9 NY3d 117, 122 [2007]; Rosner v Caplow, 90 AD2d 44, 49 [1982], affd 60 NY2d 880 [1983]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 5, 2009, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to an interpretation of the parties’ settlement stipulation as requiring respondent to pay petitioner the $35,000 differential in the value of two parcels of property from her own personal funds, rather than from trust funds, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and it is directed that the $35,000 be paid from trust funds.

The trust instrument unambiguously required the trustee to divide principal distributions into “equal parts” and gave the trustee discretion to allot trust assets among remainderman shares to fulfill this requirement (see Matter of Matthews Trust No. 1, 61 AD3d 511, 512 [2009], Iv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]). The trust provisions are not altered by the parties’ stipulation of settlement (see EPTL 7-2.4; Matter of Wallens, 9 NY3d 117, 122 [2007]; Rosner v Caplow, 90 AD2d 44, 49 [1982], affd 60 NY2d 880 [1983]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 426, 910 N.Y.S.2d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-trust-for-the-benefit-of-adler-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack