In re Weinraub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Weinraub

68 A.D.3d 679, 892 N.Y.2d 88

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

DecidedDecember 29, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 679 (In re Weinraub) 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 Weinraub, 68 A.D.3d 679, 892 N.Y.2d 88 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in removing appellant as trustee of the captioned trust (see SCPA 719 [1], [3], [10]; 711 [3], [8], [12]; Matter of Duke, 87 NY2d 465, 472-473 [1996]). The appellant failed to account over many years, despite repeated requests by a cotrustee and beneficiary and a court order compelling him to do so by a date certain. In a parallel proceeding in Westchester County, the appellant, who is an attorney, was removed as trustee of the same decedent’s testamentary trusts after he not only failed to purge a contempt order by providing accountings, but then failed to appear for the subsequent removal hearing and left the jurisdiction despite a warrant of commitment being issued by the Surrogate’s Court of that County (NYLJ, July 10, 2008, at 36, 2008 NY Misc LEXIS 4366 [2008], affd 66 AD3d 691 [2009]). Under these circumstances, his removal as cotrustee by the Surrogate of New York County was warranted (see Matter of Flaum v Birnbaum, 191 AD2d 227 [1993]; Matter of Britton, 173 Misc 2d 300, 303 [1997]).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in removing appellant as trustee of the captioned trust (see SCPA 719 [1], [3], [10]; 711 [3], [8], [12]; Matter of Duke, 87 NY2d 465, 472-473 [1996]). The appellant failed to account over many years, despite repeated requests by a cotrustee and beneficiary and a court order compelling him to do so by a date certain. In a parallel proceeding in Westchester County, the appellant, who is an attorney, was removed as trustee of the same decedent’s testamentary trusts after he not only failed to purge a contempt order by providing accountings, but then failed to appear for the subsequent removal hearing and left the jurisdiction despite a warrant of commitment being issued by the Surrogate’s Court of that County (NYLJ, July 10, 2008, at 36, 2008 NY Misc LEXIS 4366 [2008], affd 66 AD3d 691 [2009]). Under these circumstances, his removal as cotrustee by the Surrogate of New York County was warranted (see Matter of Flaum v Birnbaum, 191 AD2d 227 [1993]; Matter of Britton, 173 Misc 2d 300, 303 [1997]).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 679, 892 N.Y.2d 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-weinraub-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack