Home/New York Court of Appeals/Pertie v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Pertie v. Chase Manhattan Bank

307 N.E.2d 253, 33 N.Y.2d 846, 352 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 884
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 27, 1973
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 307 N.E.2d 253 (Pertie v. Chase Manhattan Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pertie v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 307 N.E.2d 253, 33 N.Y.2d 846, 352 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 884 (N.Y. 1973).

Opinion

Order modified by annulling the direction that judgment be entered in favor of American Mental Health Foundation and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable, out of the trust estate, and the case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: The Appellate Division correctly held that because of his homicidal act, Dalton could not benefit from the trust created by his victim (Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N. Y. 506; Matter of Kaplan, 49 Misc 2d 335) and that this disqualification extends with equal force to Dalton’s nominee, Gonynor. However, we find no appropriate basis for differentiating between Gonynor and the other contingent beneficiary, American Mental Health Foundation, which likewise was a nominee of Dalton. The rights of both these beneficiaries had their genesis in the nomination by Dalton followed by his felonious act and would not have ripened had it not been for his conceded wrongdoing. Hnder these circumstances and where such a wrongdoer has procured a gift to others not shown to have been privy to his wrong, but nominees nonetheless, their rights likewise are to be divested in favor of those who would benefit had the wrong not been inflicted.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Bubke, Bbeitel, Jasen, Gabbielli, Jones and Wachtleb.

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

Related

In re Demesyeux
42 Misc. 3d 730 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2013)
In re the Estate of Alexis
14 Misc. 3d 379 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2006)
In Re the Estates of Covert
761 N.E.2d 571 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)
In re the Estates of Covert
279 A.D.2d 48 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Estate of Davidson
177 Misc. 2d 928 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1998)
In re the Estate of Dorsey
161 Misc. 2d 258 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1994)
Children of Bedford, Inc. v. Petromelis
573 N.E.2d 541 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)
In re the Estate of Rose
141 Misc. 2d 412 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1988)
Miller v. Continental Insurance
358 N.E.2d 258 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
In re the Estate of Bach
53 A.D.2d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Estate of Bach
81 Misc. 2d 479 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
307 N.E.2d 253, 33 N.Y.2d 846, 352 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pertie-v-chase-manhattan-bank-ny-1973.