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: Austin E. BASNER, deceased. William Yale, et al., appellants, Charles Basner, et al., respondents.
In a proceeding to settle the account of William Yale and Albert L. Polon, as executors of the estate of Austin E. Basner, the petitioners appeal from so much of an order of the Surrogate's Court, Orange County (Slobod, S.), dated February 10, 2006, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing certain affirmative defenses and objections of Charles Basner and Myra Shrier.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The Surrogate's Court properly denied the petitioners' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing certain affirmative defenses and objections of Charles Basner and Myra Shrier (hereinafter the objectants). In response to the petitioners' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law that they retained a qualified attorney and a qualified accountant, the objectants raised triable issues of fact as to the adequacy of the attorney's performance and the accountant's performance. In response to the petitioners' showing that they properly requested a release from the beneficiaries before making payment to them from the residuary estate, the objectants raised an issue of fact as to whether the release was overbroad and inappropriate for only a partial distribution. In response to the petitioners' showing that they acted prudently in liquidating the decedent's IRA account that was losing value, the objectants raised an issue of fact as to whether the estate suffered a loss because of their imprudent handling of the IRA account with regard to taxes (see EPTL 11-2.3[b][3][B] ). Since triable issues of fact exist, summary judgment was properly denied (see Matter of Janes, 90 N.Y.2d 41, 50, 659 N.Y.S.2d 165, 681 N.E.2d 332; Matter of Skelly, 284 A.D.2d 336, 725 N.Y.S.2d 666).
Contrary to the objectants' contentions, however, sanctions are not warranted on this appeal under the circumstances of this case (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] ).
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 06, 2007
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)