Koeppel v. Koeppel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koeppel v. Koeppel

268 A.D.2d 282, 701 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 363

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 282 (Koeppel v. Koeppel) 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

Koeppel v. Koeppel, 268 A.D.2d 282, 701 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered November 10, 1998, which granted respondent coexecutors’ cross motion for summary judgment on their first counterclaim determining that they had acted properly in terminating certain payments that petitioner beneficiary had been receiving under the will, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The provision of the will directing the termination of the payments in question if petitioner interfered or involved himself with any of the businesses in which the estate has an interest, or commenced litigation adverse to such interests, is not against public policy (cf., EPTL 3-3.5; see, Oliver v Wells, 254 NY 451, 458-459). By requesting in his petition the dissolution of a business in which the estate held a controlling interest or, alternatively, a buy-out of his interest in that business, petitioner made his choice, preferring enforcement of his [283]*283rights as a minority shareholder in an estate business over continued receipt of the payments in question. We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach and Saxe, 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 November 10, 1998, which granted respondent coexecutors’ cross motion for summary judgment on their first counterclaim determining that they had acted properly in terminating certain payments that petitioner beneficiary had been receiving under the will, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The provision of the will directing the termination of the payments in question if petitioner interfered or involved himself with any of the businesses in which the estate has an interest, or commenced litigation adverse to such interests, is not against public policy (cf., EPTL 3-3.5; see, Oliver v Wells, 254 NY 451, 458-459). By requesting in his petition the dissolution of a business in which the estate held a controlling interest or, alternatively, a buy-out of his interest in that business, petitioner made his choice, preferring enforcement of his [283]*283rights as a minority shareholder in an estate business over continued receipt of the payments in question. We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 282, 701 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koeppel-v-koeppel-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack