Macklowitz v. Solomon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Macklowitz v. Solomon

106 A.D.3d 467, 965 N.Y.S.2d 870

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

DecidedMay 9, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 467 (Macklowitz v. Solomon) 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

Macklowitz v. Solomon, 106 A.D.3d 467, 965 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[468]*468Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, S.), entered June 27, 2012, which granted the petition to the extent of declaring two of the petitioners to be the lawful trustees of the subject trust and further declaring that appellant Jeffrey Solomon and respondent Russell Williams are not trustees of the trust, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The documentary evidence establishes that pursuant to the clear and unambiguous language of the trust, appellant was never validly appointed trustee and respondents Daniel Macklowitz and Laurie Selfon were duly appointed (see Matter of Matthews Trust No. 1, 61 AD3d 511, 512 [1st Dept 2009]). Moreover, as appellant’s only alleged act as trustee was to make certain payments that he was not required to make, from his own funds, it cannot be said that he relied upon any representation or assent to his being trustee in making such payments, nor has his position changed prejudicially, as he has a claim for the payments against the trust (BWA Corp. v Alltrans Express U.S.A., 112 AD2d 850, 853 [1st Dept 1985]). Nor did the Surrogate err in failing to allow discovery or in ruling upon the petition and verified answers. This is a special proceeding and summary disposition is expressly permitted (CPLR 409). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

[468]*468Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, S.), entered June 27, 2012, which granted the petition to the extent of declaring two of the petitioners to be the lawful trustees of the subject trust and further declaring that appellant Jeffrey Solomon and respondent Russell Williams are not trustees of the trust, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The documentary evidence establishes that pursuant to the clear and unambiguous language of the trust, appellant was never validly appointed trustee and respondents Daniel Macklowitz and Laurie Selfon were duly appointed (see Matter of Matthews Trust No. 1, 61 AD3d 511, 512 [1st Dept 2009]). Moreover, as appellant’s only alleged act as trustee was to make certain payments that he was not required to make, from his own funds, it cannot be said that he relied upon any representation or assent to his being trustee in making such payments, nor has his position changed prejudicially, as he has a claim for the payments against the trust (BWA Corp. v Alltrans Express U.S.A., 112 AD2d 850, 853 [1st Dept 1985]). Nor did the Surrogate err in failing to allow discovery or in ruling upon the petition and verified answers. This is a special proceeding and summary disposition is expressly permitted (CPLR 409). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 467, 965 N.Y.S.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macklowitz-v-solomon-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack