Court Opinion

ID: 9957958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 20:08:46.202745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:33.972340
License: Public Domain

Matter of Weinstein
               2024 NY Slip Op 31111(U)
                     March 29, 2024
          Surrogate's Court, New York County
        Docket Number: File No. P1963-2259/C
                  Judge: Hilary Gingold
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                               New York County Surrogate's Court
                                                                                   DATA ENTRY DEPT.
                                                                                     MAR 19 2024
        SURROGATE'S COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
        COUNTY OF NEW YORK
        -----------------------------------------x
        In the Matter of the First
        Intermediate Account of Proceedings
        of Lloyd J. Shulman, as Trustee of
        the Trust Created for the Benefit
        of Gail Shulman Koster under Article                    File No. P1963-2259/C
        Sixth of the Will of

                     JOE WEINSTEIN,

                                Deceased.
        -----------------------------------------x
        G I N G O L D , S .

               Before     the   court    are    two   motions   in   connection     with       the

        settlement of the intermediate account of Lloyd J. Shulman (Trustee

        or Petitioner), as trustee of the trust under article sixth of the

        will   of   Joe   Weinstein      for    the   benefit   of   Gail   Shulman      Koster

        (Trust).    The    Trustee      moves   for   partial   summary     judgment        (CPLR

        3212) 1 dismissing certain objections of Jonathan Koster (Objectant

        or Jonathan), a presumptive remainder beneficiary.                   Shortly after

        the Trustee's motion was sub judice, Jonathan submitted a motion to

        compel discovery.          For the reasons stated herein the court denies

        both motions.

               Decedent died testate in 1953. His will, admitted to probate

        on August 5,       1965,    created a     trust   for the life benefit of his

        granddaughter, Gail Shulman Koster.               Upon Gail's death, the trust

               1
                 The Trustee seeks to dismiss certain objections without citing any
        provision of the CPLR.   However, since objections were filed here, i.e., issue
        has been joined, the court will treat the Trustee's motion as one for summary
        judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 (see Tufail v Hionas, 156 AD2d 670 [2d Dept
        1989] [where issue had been joined, court should not have deemed unlabeled
        motion as motion to dismiss, but rather as one for summary judgment], citing
        Rich v. Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276[1982]).

[* 1]
        remainder is distributable         to Gail's        issue,     Melinda Koster and

        Jonathan Koster.     Letters     of Trusteeship issued to Max Shulman,

        Sylvia Shulman, and Lloyd J. Shulman on August 8, 1965. Max died in

        2001 and Sylvia died in 2012 2 • Lloyd, as surviving Trustee, filed

        an intermediate account for the period covering December 19, 1973,

        to June 30, 2016. Objections to the account were filed by Jonathan.

        Melinda   and Gail    executed     releases,        wherein,    inter alia,       they

        consent to the account as filed.

               Summary judgment is granted when the movant's case has been

        "established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law"

        to direct judgment, but will be denied if the opposing party shows

        "facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact"                    (CPLR

        3212[b]).     In the context of an accounting proceeding such as this,

        the fiduciary's sworn account,        completed and filed in accordance

        with the Surrogate's Court Official Forms for judicial accountings,

        satisfies     the    fiduciary's     initial         burden      of   establishing

        entitlement to judgment that the account is complete and accurate

        (Matter of Rudin,    34 AD3d 371 [1 st Dept 2006] ["The fiduciary's burden

        is usually met by simply placing the account into the record"]; see

        also   SCPA   106   [providing     that       the   Official     Forms   "shall    be

        sufficient under the surrogate's court procedure act"]). To defeat

        the motion, the burden shifts to the opposing party to offer proof

              2
                Lloyd Shulman has appeared in this proceeding as the fiduciary of
        Max's and Sylvia's estates.

                                                  2

[* 2]
        that    demonstrates            the   existence       of   a    material       issue        of   fact,

        requiring       a    trial        (Zuckerman      v    City      of     New     York,       49    NY2d

        557[1980])          However,      summary judgment may be denied where facts

        essential to the opposition of the motion are exclusively within

        the knowledge or control of the movant                           (CPLR 3212          [fl)    and the

        opposing party has not had a reasonable opportunity for disclosure

        (see Baron v Freeport, 143 AD2d 792[2d Dept 1988]).

               Here, the court record reflects that discovery was in the very

        early stages when the Trustee brought his motion seeking to dismiss

        six of Jonathan's 27 objections to the account. Indeed, the Trustee

        made    his    motion       for       summary    judgment        only    twelve       days       after

        Jonathan filed his pleading. Shortly after the submission of the

        Trustee's motion, which Jonathan opposed, the parties conferenced

        the    case with       a   court-attorney referee                 several      times        and were

        engaging in         informal discovery when                Jonathan          filed    the    instant

        motion seeking to compel discovery. Where as here, the Trustee is

        in sole possession of the information necessary to explain what

        transpired during the accounting period, Objectant should be given

        the    opportunity         to    obtain    discovery           prior    to    the    granting       of

        summary judgment           (see Vukel v Joan DiGirolomo Irrevocable Trust,

        172 AD3d 951 [2d Dept 2019])

               In     opposing       Jonathan's         motion     to     compel       discovery,          the

        Trustee       argues that a stay was in effect upon the filing of his

        partial summary judgment motion,                      or alternatively,              that he has

                                                         3

[* 3]
        responded to Jonathan's discovery demands, either by producing the

        requested documents or by explaining his reasons why such discovery

        is beyond the scope of the account.       Lastly, he notes, and court

        records confirm, there was no court order directing discovery that

        he would otherwise be in violation of.

                Finally, Jonathan's request for the Trustee to pay his legal

        fees,    costs and disbursements   in connection with his motion is

        denied as there is no evidence that the alleged conduct of the

        Trustee was either wilful or contumacious.

                Accordingly, based on the foregoing,   it is

                ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment

        is denied as premature; and it is further

                ORDERED that Objectant's motion to compel discovery is denied

        in its entirety; and it is further

                ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference

        in Courtroom 509 on May 9, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

                 The clerk shall serve a copy of this decision by regular mail

        and email and order upon the parties whose addresses are listed

        below.

                         ~
        Dated: March~, 2024

                                           4

[* 4]
        TO:

        Robert L. Ecker, Esq.
        Ecker, Ecker & Associates, LLP
        80 Business Park Drive, Suite 204
        Armonk, New York 10504
        Attorneys for Petitioner, Lloyd Shulman

        Donald Novick, Esq.
        Novick & Associates, P.C.
        202 East Main Street, Suite 208
        Huntington, New York 11743
        Co-Counsel for Petitioner, Lloyd Shulman

        Ira Kleiman, Esq.
        Brief Carmen & Kleinman, LLP
        488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1120
        New York, NY 10022
        ik@briefjustice.com
        Attorneys for Objectant, Jonathan Koster

                                       5

[* 5]