Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM A. BEARD, DECEASED. WENDY LOUGNOUT, ESQ., AS PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; DIANE BEARD, OBJECTANT-APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying that part of the motion seeking to dismiss objection F and reinstating that objection, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding for the judicial settlement of the final accounting of decedent's estate, objectant appeals from an order that granted in part petitioner's motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections to the accounting filed by objectant.
Here, petitioner established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to objections A, B, E, F and H by submitting an accounting reflecting decedent's assets (see Matter of Crane, 100 AD3d 626, 628 [2d Dept 2012], lv dismissed 21 NY3d 1000 [2013], lv denied 29 NY3d 906 [2017]).
We agree with objectant that, in opposition to the motion, she raised an issue of fact with respect to objection F. In objection F, objectant alleged that petitioner had failed to account for items removed from decedent's estate by another beneficiary. Objectant raised an issue of fact with respect to that objection by submitting evidence that a beneficiary had removed items from the estate, including pieces from a bedroom set, and that petitioner had not applied a corresponding offset to that beneficiary's share of the estate (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). We therefore modify the order by denying that part of the motion seeking to dismiss objection F and reinstating that objection.
Contrary to objectant's contention, we conclude that she failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to objections A, B, E, and H (see Crane, 100 AD3d at 629; Matter of McAlpine, 85 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2d Dept 2011]; see generally Matter of Wilson, 178 AD2d 996, 997 [4th Dept 1991]).
Entered: June 14, 2024
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 111
Decided: June 14, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)