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: Jack CHADRJIAN, deceased. Lita Chadrjian, respondent; John Chadrjian, et al., appellants.
In a contested accounting proceeding, the objectants appeal from an order of the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated September 30, 2003, which granted the petitioner's motion, in effect, for advice and direction pursuant to SCPA 2107, directing the co-trustees under the will of Jack Chadrjian to distribute the trust income without any reduction for depreciation pursuant to 26 USC § 754.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The will at issue in this case specifically directed the trustees of the qualified terminable interest property trust created under the will “to pay to the income beneficiary or beneficiaries hereunder the total income received by them in respect of leases or any other wasting, diminishing or decreasing assets.” Reading the will in its entirety and in view of all the facts and circumstances under which its provisions were framed (see Matter of Bieley, 91 N.Y.2d 520, 525-526, 673 N.Y.S.2d 38, 695 N.E.2d 1119; Matter of Fabbri, 2 N.Y.2d 236, 240, 159 N.Y.S.2d 184, 140 N.E.2d 269), we agree with the Surrogate that the testator intended to afford the surviving spouse with the full income of the trust during her lifetime. Accordingly, the Surrogate properly directed the trustees to distribute the trust income without any reduction for depreciation deductions allowable by virtue of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) § 754 election taken by the limited partnerships owning the real property (see Matter of Diamond, 137 Misc.2d 43, 519 N.Y.S.2d 788; Matter of Ottmann, 197 Misc. 645, 95 N.Y.S.2d 5; Matter of Bruen, 83 N.Y.S.2d 197).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
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 22, 2005
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)