Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

motiontrustcompliance

motiontrustappellant

Related Cases

In re Tenenbaum, 81 A.D.3d 738, 916 N.Y.S.2d 205, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 01033

Facts

Helen Chayie Sieger petitioned the Surrogate's Court to compel the turnover of certain property from the estate of her late father, Michael Tenenbaum. The co-executors, including Briendy Melnicke, were involved in disputes over the identity of assets in an inter vivos trust established by their parents. A prior order had stayed the turnover proceeding until the siblings provided documentation to clarify the assets involved. Melnicke later moved to vacate this stay, which was denied by the Surrogate's Court.

The appellant and her four siblings are the co-executors of the estate of their late father, and co-trustees of an inter vivos trust established by their late parents in 1989. By order dated March 7, 2008, the Surrogate stayed the turnover proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2105 in which one of the siblings seeks to compel the turnover of certain property from the estate which she claims the decedent transferred to her, as well as several pending motions involving, inter alia, disputes over the identity of the assets which are part of the inter vivos trust.

Issue

Did the Surrogate's Court err in denying Briendy Melnicke's motion to vacate the stay of the turnover proceeding?

Rule

CPLR 2201 provides that a court may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, and the court has broad discretion to do so to avoid inconsistent adjudications and waste of judicial resources.

CPLR 2201 provides that “[e]xcept where otherwise prescribed by law, the court in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just.”

Analysis

The Appellate Division found that the Surrogate's Court did not abuse its discretion in maintaining the stay. The court emphasized the need for the co-executors to provide documentation to identify the assets of the inter vivos trust before proceeding with the turnover. This requirement was deemed necessary to prevent inconsistent determinations regarding the competing claims of the siblings.

Under the circumstances of this case, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Surrogate to deny the appellant's motion, inter alia, to vacate the stay of the turnover proceeding, stating that the stay would be lifted if the appellant and her siblings complied with the prior order instructing them to provide the documentary evidence necessary to identify the assets of the inter vivos trust, and to distinguish those assets from the assets of the estate.

Conclusion

The Appellate Division affirmed the Surrogate's Court's order, concluding that the stay was justified and could be lifted upon compliance with the prior order.

ORDERED that the order dated December 22, 2009, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Helen Chayie Sieger, as the court upheld the Surrogate's Court's decision to maintain the stay until the necessary documentation was provided.

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that surrogate court providently exercised its discretion to deny motion to vacate stay of turnover proceeding.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Koen Book Distributors, Inc. v. Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle, Bowman & Lombardo, P.C., 212 F.R.D. 283

U.S. v. Mierzwicki, 500 F.Supp. 1331, 7 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1233

Meehan v. Hopps, 45 Cal.2d 213, 288 P.2d 267

Rosenthal v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States, 273 N.Y. 522, 6 N.E.2d 609

John Doe Co. v. U.S., 350 F.3d 299, 62 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1231