Matter of Addesso v. Addesso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Addesso v. Addesso

131 A.D.3d 1053, 16 N.Y.S.3d 473

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 2015

Docket2014-07362

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 1053 (Matter of Addesso v. Addesso) 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

Matter of Addesso v. Addesso, 131 A.D.3d 1053, 16 N.Y.S.3d 473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 77, inter alia, for an accounting of a certain trust account and a distribution to the petitioner in accordance with the trust agreement, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Loehr, J.), dated January 15, 2014, as, in effect, denied the amended petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A petition previously filed by the petitioner was denied by the Supreme Court without prejudice to renewal (see Matter of Addesso v Addesso, 131 AD3d 1052 [2015] [decided herewith]). In his amended petition, the petitioner sought, among other things, an accounting of a certain trust account and a distribution to him in accordance with the trust agreement. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, in effect, summarily denied the amended petition upon the pleadings and papers submitted by the parties (see CPLR 409 [b]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that there were no triable issues of fact (see CPLR 409 [b]). The respondents submitted proof that the subject trust had no assets and that the petitioner previously had been provided with an accounting. The petitioner failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to whether any trust assets remained or whether the accounting provided was incomplete or inaccurate (cf. Matter of Doman, 110 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2013]; Matter of Carbone, 101 AD3d 866, 868 [2012]; Matter of Crane, 100 AD3d 626, 628 [2012]; Matter of McAlpine, 85 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the amended petition.

In light of the foregoing determination, we do not reach the petitioner’s remaining contentions.

Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 77, inter alia, for an accounting of a certain trust account and a distribution to the petitioner in accordance with the trust agreement, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Loehr, J.), dated January 15, 2014, as, in effect, denied the amended petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A petition previously filed by the petitioner was denied by the Supreme Court without prejudice to renewal (see Matter of Addesso v Addesso, 131 AD3d 1052 [2015] [decided herewith]). In his amended petition, the petitioner sought, among other things, an accounting of a certain trust account and a distribution to him in accordance with the trust agreement. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, in effect, summarily denied the amended petition upon the pleadings and papers submitted by the parties (see CPLR 409 [b]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that there were no triable issues of fact (see CPLR 409 [b]). The respondents submitted proof that the subject trust had no assets and that the petitioner previously had been provided with an accounting. The petitioner failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to whether any trust assets remained or whether the accounting provided was incomplete or inaccurate (cf. Matter of Doman, 110 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2013]; Matter of Carbone, 101 AD3d 866, 868 [2012]; Matter of Crane, 100 AD3d 626, 628 [2012]; Matter of McAlpine, 85 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the amended petition.

In light of the foregoing determination, we do not reach the petitioner’s remaining contentions.

Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 1053, 16 N.Y.S.3d 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-addesso-v-addesso-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack