IN RE: SRC FAMILY TRUST ESTABLISHED UNDER THE VALHALLA TRUST DATED APRIL 1 (2024)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

IN RE: SRC FAMILY TRUST ESTABLISHED UNDER THE VALHALLA TRUST DATED APRIL 1, 1978, AS AMENDED BY COURT DECREE ISSUED MAY 1, 2006. (PROCEEDING NO. 1.) IN THE MATTER OF MJC FAMILY TRUST ESTABLISHED UNDER THE VALHALLA TRUST DATED APRIL 1, 1978, AS AMENDED BY COURT DECREE ISSUED MAY 1, 2006. (PROCEEDING NO. 2.) MICHAEL A. MAMMOLITO AND TIMOTHY AHERN, TRUSTEES OF THE SRC FAMILY TRUST AND THE MJC FAMILY TRUST, PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS; MARK CONGEL, REBECCA CONGEL, SABRINA CONGEL, ROBERT CONGEL, JACK CONGEL, RYAN CONGEL, SYDNEY CONGEL, LOGAN CONGEL AND JAEDYN CONGEL, OBJECTANTS-APPELLANTS.

308.1 Decided: June 14, 2024

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND KEANE, JJ.

BARCLAY DAMON LLP, BUFFALO (JENNIFER G. FLANNERY OF COUNSEL), FOR OBJECTANTS-APPELLANTS REBECCA CONGEL, SABRINA CONGEL, ROBERT CONGEL, JACK CONGEL, RYAN CONGEL, SYDNEY CONGEL, LOGAN CONGEL AND JAEDYN CONGEL. HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, SYRACUSE (JANET D. CALLAHAN OF COUNSEL), FOR OBJECTANT-APPELLANT MARK CONGEL. COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON, PLLC, SYRACUSE (ROBERT J. SMITH OF COUNSEL), AND MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, FOR PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeals are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: In this dispute over family trusts, objectants appeal from an order that, inter alia, granted in part petitioners’ motions for summary judgment dismissing particular objections to certain settlements of accounting filed by petitioners. Following a subsequent trial, Surrogate's Court entered a final decree (denominated order) dated December 13, 2023 denying the remaining objections after finding them without merit and judicially settling the accounts. Inasmuch as “[t]he right to appeal from an intermediate order terminates with the entry of a final judgment” (Matter of Scott v Manilla, 203 AD2d 972, 973 [4th Dept 1994]; see generally CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]), this appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed (see McCann v Gordon, 204 AD3d 1449, 1449 [4th Dept 2022], appeal dismissed 38 NY3d 1158 [2022]; see also Matter of Frank A. Clemente Two-Year Grantor Retained Annuity Trust, 224 AD3d 945, 945-946 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Panella [appeal No. 2], 218 AD3d 1198, 1199 [4th Dept 2023]). Objectants may raise their contentions in an appeal from the final decree (see generally Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567 [1st Dept 1978]).

Entered: June 14, 2024

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network