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: Rae L. KASTEN, Deceased. Leslie Perl, etc., et al., Respondents; Sol Rosenfeld, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
In a proceeding, inter alia, to recover property withheld from the decedent's estate, Sol Rosenfeld, Louis Rosenfeld, and Brenda Rosenfeld appeal, and Chaim Feierstein separately appeals, from an order of the Surrogate's Court, Kings County (Scholnick, S.), entered September 26, 1996, which, upon an earlier order of the same court, dated March 7, 1996, which granted the petition on the ground that the petitioners established a valid gift causa mortis, directed the turnover of assets to the decedent's estate.
ORDERED that the appeal taken by Brenda Rosenfeld from the order entered September 26, 1996, is dismissed, as she is not aggrieved thereby; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellants personally.
All of the elements necessary to establish the existence of valid gifts causa mortis were proven here by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence (see, Matter of Korman, 36 A.D.2d 709, 319 N.Y.S.2d 577). There was direct evidence, as established by the surrounding circumstances and the donor's deposition testimony, that the donor was under the apprehension of impending death when she gave the appellants the subject securities (see, Matter of Swanson, 109 A.D.2d 844, 486 N.Y.S.2d 370). Accordingly, the gifts were not irrevocable, and should have been returned to the donor when she demanded them upon her recovery from the illness which she had believed would be terminal (see, Ridden v. Thrall, 125 N.Y. 572, 26 N.E. 627). Therefore, the Surrogate's Court properly ordered that the securities be turned over to the donor's estate (see, Matter of Kelsey, 29 A.D.2d 450, 289 N.Y.S.2d 314, affd. 26 N.Y.2d 792, 309 N.Y.S.2d 219, 257 N.E.2d 663).
Furthermore, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ordering the bifurcation of the issues to be tried (see, CPLR 603, 4011; Koskey v. Chubb Corp., 233 A.D.2d 299, 649 N.Y.S.2d 807; Fetterman v. Evans, 204 A.D.2d 888, 612 N.Y.S.2d 479).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY 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.
Decided: February 02, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)