Matter of Chadrjian
Annotate this CaseDecided on August 10, 2006
Sur Ct, Nassau County
In the Matter of the of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Jack Chadrjian, Deceased.
284060
The appearance of counsel is as follows:
Farrell Fritz, P.C. (Attorneys for Petitioner)
1320 Reckson Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556-0320
By: John J. Barnosky
Kamerman, Meyrowitz & Soniker P.C (Attorneys for Respondent)
470 Park Avenue South
12th Floor South
New York, NY 10016-0209
By: Jerome Kamerman
Martin Klein
John Riordan, J.
Before the court is a motion by the executor for an order consenting to a transfer to this court of an action currently pending in Supreme Court, New York County (SCPA 209[3], 501[1][b]). Respondent John K. Chadrjian ("Respondent") argues that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the dispute and that Nassau County is not the proper venue for the case.
Jack Chadrjian ("Decedent") died on December 28, 1993. This court admitted his Last Will and Testament to probate and issued letters testamentary to petitioner on January 28, 1994. Petitioner subsequently filed an accounting and a supplemental accounting, respectively, with this court. At the closing date of the latter, the estate held interests in real estate partnerships Caprice Associates, Bristol East Co., and Caprice Co., all controlled by general partner Caprice Management Corp ("CMC"). At a February 23, 1993 special meeting of CMC's shareholders, decedent issued sixty shares of stock each to petitioner and respondent, with petitioner holding her shares in trust for respondent, and with respondent holding his stocks in trust for decedent, an arrangement referred to as a "tontine" trust. Evidenced in the meeting's minutes is "the intention that the sole possession and ownership of the stock remain within the three parties and that the survivor of the three have sole possession of all the outstanding and issued stock of the corporation." Also, new stock certificates would be issued when one of the parties died, and these would be evenly split and distributed to the remaining parties, with each holding his share in trust for the other. Petitioner disputes the existence of this arrangement, and respondent's pending Supreme Court case pertains to petitioner's actions as executrix relating to decedent's sixty CMC shares.
The Surrogate Court's subject matter jurisdiction has steadily expanded throughout the twentieth century (Matter of Piccione, 57 NY2d 278, 287 [1982]). The Court of Appeals held in Matter of Piccione (57 NY2d 278, 442 NE2d 1180, 456 NYS2d 669 [1982]), a case involving two living parties (one being a fiduciary of a decedent's estate) and an eviction proceeding, that, "for the Surrogate's Court to decline jurisdiction, it should be abundantly clear that the matter in controversy in no way affects the affairs of a decedent or the administration of his estate" (57 NY2d 278, 288 [1982].
It is readily conceded by the parties that decedent's sixty shares of CMC are a major asset of the estate. In the accounting proceeding, petitioner moved this court for an order confirming CMC majority shareholder's corporate actions, compelling respondent, as vice president of CMC, to comply with a demand to call a special meeting and, as director, to consent [*2]to that meeting, imposing sanctions upon respondent, as vice president, for failure to call that meeting, and ordering respondent to pay attorney's fees. Petitioner's status as the controller of a majority of shares of CMC was vigorously disputed. This court ruled that these allegations did not pertain to either decedent's affairs or the administration of his estate, but instead involved matters of corporate governance (Decision No. 189 dated June 30, 2005 at 4). In this motion, respondent asserts that because petitioner's pending case would force this court to analyze CMC's corporate minutes, it would ultimately be deciding matters of corporate governance and therefore be outside this court's subject matter jurisdiction. However, respondent also alleges in his pending case in the Supreme Court that petitioner withheld forty of decedent's sixty shares and gave ten shares to both him and his sister in violation of a disputed tontine trust. As this court described decedent's shares as a "major asset" of the estate and respondent's case involves those shares, it is not "abundantly clear that the matter in controversy in no way affects the administration of his [Decedent's] estate." In fact, a court decision regarding ownership of decedent's sixty shares of CMC would undoubtedly affect the administration of his estate and is well within the court's purview. Accordingly, the Surrogate's Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear respondent's pending case insofar as the issue concerns ownership of the shares of CMC.
The next objection to transfer concerns an issue of venue. Under SCPA 207[1], proceedings involving lifetime trusts can be properly heard where "(a) assets of the trust estate are located, or (b) the grantor was domiciled at the time of the commencement of a proceeding concerning the trust, or (c) a trustee then acting sides." Under SCPA 205[1], "the proper venue for proceeding relating to estates is the county of the decedent's domicile at the time of his death " If it is disputed whether the case involves a lifetime trust or an estate asset, SCPA 209[4] gives the Surrogate's Court the power "to determine property available for distribution under his [the decedent's] will and to determine the rights of any persons claiming an interest therein as between themselves, and to construe any instrument made by him affecting such property."
While Respondent asserts that a tontine trust between decedent, petitioner, and respondent governs the decedent's sixty CMC shares, petitioner claims otherwise, arguing that the shares pass under the decedent's will addresses the shares. Because it is disputed whether a lifetime trust governs decedent's shares, the Surrogate's Court can make a determination as to whether the sixty shares are available for distribution. Further, not only was decedent's will admitted to probate by this court, but this court was subsequently involved in two accounting proceedings regarding the decedent's estate. While the court in Matter of Kelly (17 AD3d 791, 794 NYS2d 458 [3d Dep't 2005]) (cited by Respondent) enforced SCPA § 207[1] after probate, there was no controversy over the existence of the inter vivos trust, and the Surrogate's Court was not involved in post-probate action between parties. There is a controversy over the existence of a tontine trust, and this Court has been involved with numerous matters regarding the decedent's estate. Therefore, Nassau County is the proper venue for respondent's pending case to be heard.
Because both subject matter jurisdiction and venue are proper, this Court consents to the transfer of pending case John K Chadrijian v. Lita Chadrjian, individually, Lita Chadrijian, as Executrix of the Estate of Jack Chadrjian, Deceased, and Nancy Tumelty from Supreme Court in [*3]New York County to the Surrogate's Court in Nassau County, if the Supreme Court be inclined to order its transfer.
This decision constitutes the order of the court.
Dated: August 10, 2006
JOHN B. RIORDAN
Judge of the
Surrogate's Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
