Matter of Bronner v Park Ave. Tower

Matter of Bronner v Park Ave. Tower 2013 NY Slip Op 08106 Decided on December 5, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 5, 2013
Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Freedman, Clark, JJ. Petition for a Compulsory File Accounting and Related Relief in the Ruth Bronner and Zwi Levy 2271C/12 Family Sprinkling Trust, etc. Petition for a Compulsory Accounting and Related Relief in the Ruth Bronner Trust, etc., et al. Petition for a Compulsory Accounting and Related Relief in the RB and ZL Family Sprinkling Trust created on January 14, by Zwi O. Levy, etc., et al.
10528 2271/12 2271A/12 1993

[*1]In re Ruth T. Bronner, Petitioner-Respondent,

v

Park Avenue Tower, Respondent-Appellant.




Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, New York (Thomas J. Fleming of
counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of Brendan P. Kearse, New York (Brendan P.
Kearse of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Kristen Booth Glen, S.), entered October 23, 2012, which denied appellant's motion to dismiss compulsory accounting petitions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Surrogate properly found that respondent, the trustee of three trusts of which petitioner was a beneficiary, failed to conclusively demonstrate the integrity and fairness of the transaction which transferred the trusts' assets, or to establish that he fully informed petitioner of the effect and ramifications of the releases and waivers of accounting that she apparently signed (see Matter of Gordon v Bialystoker Ctr. & Bikur Cholim, 45 NY2d 692, 698 [1978]). Respondent also failed to show the complete repudiation of his duties as a fiduciary after the trusts were allegedly terminated in March 2006. He retained trust assets and filed tax returns on behalf of the trusts after the execution of releases and waivers representing that the trusts had been terminated (see Westchester Religious Inst. v Kamerman, 262 AD2d 231 [1st Dept 1999]). [*2]Thus, the Surrogate properly found that respondent's argument that the statute of limitations expired since more than six years had passed since the waivers and releases were signed is unavailing (id.).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 5, 2013

CLERK