Matter of French-Am. Aid for File Children, Inc. (Klebe)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of French-Am. Aid for File Children, Inc. (Klebe)

2017 NY Slip Op 5324, 151 A.D.3d 662, 54 N.Y.S.3d 850

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 29, 2017·No. 4394 2312/15·Published

Opinion

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Rita Mella, S.), entered June 9, 2016, inter alia, adjudging that petitioner’s revocation of a trust of which objectant is a trustee was valid, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Objectant’s contention that petitioner did not properly revoke the trust because it used Estates, Powers and Trusts Law § 7-1.9 (a) instead of section 8-1.1 (c) (2) is unavailing. Before 1985, cases held that a charitable trust could use the predecessor of EPTL 7-1.9 (a) (see e.g. Hanover Bank v United Brethren’s Church on Staten Is., 134 NYS2d 356, 361-362 [Sup Ct, NY County 1954]). In 1985, EPTL 7-1.9 was amended to add paragraph (c), which provided that “[a] trust wholly benefitting one or more charitable beneficiaries may be terminated as provided for by” EPTL 8-1.1 (c) (2) (emphasis added). Nothing in either the text of EPTL 7-1.9 (c) or the legislative history thereof indicates that charitable trusts were restricted to EPTL 8-1.1 (c) (2) after 1985 (see generally Allstate Ins. Co. v Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C., 78 AD3d 592 [1st Dept 2010]). Moreover, post-amendment cases indicate that charitable trusts may still use EPTL 7-1.9 (a) (see e.g. Board of Trustees of Museum of Am. Indian, Heye Found. v Board of Trustees of Huntington Free Lib. & Reading Room, 197 AD2d 64, 85-86 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 86 NY2d 702 [1995]; Matter of Forester, NYLJ, Dec. 3, 2001 at 17, col 3 [Sur Ct, NY County 2001]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Rita Mella, S.), entered June 9, 2016, inter alia, adjudging that petitioner’s revocation of a trust of which objectant is a trustee was valid, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Objectant’s contention that petitioner did not properly revoke the trust because it used Estates, Powers and Trusts Law § 7-1.9 (a) instead of section 8-1.1 (c) (2) is unavailing. Before 1985, cases held that a charitable trust could use the predecessor of EPTL 7-1.9 (a) (see e.g. Hanover Bank v United Brethren’s Church on Staten Is., 134 NYS2d 356, 361-362 [Sup Ct, NY County 1954]). In 1985, EPTL 7-1.9 was amended to add paragraph (c), which provided that “[a] trust wholly benefitting one or more charitable beneficiaries may be terminated as provided for by” EPTL 8-1.1 (c) (2) (emphasis added). Nothing in either the text of EPTL 7-1.9 (c) or the legislative history thereof indicates that charitable trusts were restricted to EPTL 8-1.1 (c) (2) after 1985 (see generally Allstate Ins. Co. v Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C., 78 AD3d 592 [1st Dept 2010]). Moreover, post-amendment cases indicate that charitable trusts may still use EPTL 7-1.9 (a) (see e.g. Board of Trustees of Museum of Am. Indian, Heye Found. v Board of Trustees of Huntington Free Lib. & Reading Room, 197 AD2d 64, 85-86 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 86 NY2d 702 [1995]; Matter of Forester, NYLJ, Dec. 3, 2001 at 17, col 3 [Sur Ct, NY County 2001]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Matter of French-Am. Aid for File Children, Inc. (Klebe), 2017 NY Slip Op 5324, 151 A.D.3d 662, 54 N.Y.S.3d 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 5324 (Matter of French-Am. Aid for File Children, Inc. (Klebe)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related