Opinion ID: 146451
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Baker Provided Consideration for the Annuity Contract When He Released His Wrongful Death Claim

Text: The trustee contends that the annuity is not exempt because Baker did not pa[y] the consideration for the annuity contract. N.Y. Ins. Law § 3212(d)(1). We easily conclude, however, that Baker provided the requisite consideration when he released his wrongful death claim. See Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. Steinbeck, 537 F.3d 193, 201 (2d Cir.2008) (Forbearance to assert a valid claim, if bargained for, is sufficient consideration to support a contract. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)); Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 545, 27 N.E. 256 (1891) (It is enough that something is promised, done, forborne or suffered by the party to whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise made to him. (internal quotation marks omitted)); accord Holt v. Feigenbaum, 52 N.Y.2d 291, 299, 437 N.Y.S.2d 654, 658, 419 N.E.2d 332 (1981). To the extent the trustee suggests that Baker did not have the right to give up a wrongful death claim, that argument fails because [a] cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death is a property right belonging solely to the distributees of the decedent and vests in them at the decedent's death. Carter v. N.Y. City Health & Hosps. Corp., 47 A.D.3d 661, 663, 851 N.Y.S.2d 588, 590 (2d Dep't 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). In any event, good-faith relinquishment of a cause of action, even one which proves to be unenforceable, constitutes valid consideration. Nolfi Masonry Corp. v. Lasker-Goldman Corp., 160 A.D.2d 186, 187, 553 N.Y.S.2d 156, 157 (1st Dep't 1990) (citing Byrne v. Padden, 248 N.Y. 243, 162 N.E. 20 (1928)).