Case Name: In the Matter of Ruth Bronner and Zwi Levy Family Sprinkling Trust, an Inter Vivos Trust for the Benefit of Ruth T. Bronner. Warren R. Gleicher, Appellant; Ruth T. Bronner, Respondent; In the Matter of Ruth Bronner Trust Created on July 2, 1993 by Ruth T. Bronner and Others. Warren R. Gleicher, Appellant; Ruth T. Bronner, Respondent; In the Matter of RB and ZL Family Sprinkling Trust Created on January 14, 1993 by Zwi O. Levy for the Benefit of Zwi O. Levy and Others. Warren R. Gleicher, Appellant; Ruth T. Bronner, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2013-12-05
Citations: 112 A.D.3d 429
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Ruth Bronner and Zwi Levy Family Sprinkling Trust, an Inter Vivos Trust for the Benefit of Ruth T. Bronner. Warren R. Gleicher, Appellant; Ruth T. Bronner, Respondent. In the Matter of Ruth Bronner Trust Created on July 2, 1993 by Ruth T. Bronner and Others. Warren R. Gleicher, Appellant; Ruth T. Bronner, Respondent. In the Matter of RB and ZL Family Sprinkling Trust Created on January 14, 1993 by Zwi O. Levy for the Benefit of Zwi O. Levy and Others. Warren R. Gleicher, Appellant; Ruth T. Bronner, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 112
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
(December 5, 2013)
In the Matter of Ruth Bronner and Zwi Levy Family Sprinkling Trust, an Inter Vivos Trust for the Benefit of Ruth T. Bronner. Warren R. Gleicher, Appellant; Ruth T. Bronner, Respondent. In the Matter of Ruth Bronner Trust Created on July 2, 1993 by Ruth T. Bronner and Others. Warren R. Gleicher, Appellant; Ruth T. Bronner, Respondent. In the Matter of RB and ZL Family Sprinkling Trust Created on January 14, 1993 by Zwi O. Levy for the Benefit of Zwi O. Levy and Others. Warren R. Gleicher, Appellant; Ruth T. Bronner, Respondent.
[975 NYS2d 868]

Opinion:
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 131 [1st Dept 1999]). 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.). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Freedman and Clark, JJ.