Privilege, Standing, Capacity, Equitable Adoption
In her Trusts and Estates Update, Ilene Sherwyn Cooper reviews decisions from the past three months, including one in which the court applied the crime-fraud exception and ordered production of documents relating to invoices for works of art a plaintiff said were given to her by decedent, another where the court denied a summary judgment motion on undue influence after finding decedent knowingly may have been given incorrect information on her predeceased son's arrangements for his beneficiaries, and more.
December 11, 2015 at 04:52 PM
13 minute read
As the days of summer came to a close and various changes of fall subtly made an entrance, opinions addressing a multitude of issues affecting trusts and estates also debuted. Below is a sampling of the many opinions that emerged over the past three months.
Privilege and Its Exceptions
In Stevens v. Cahill, Jr., the Surrogate's Court, New York County, was confronted with a motion to quash a subpoena served by the defendants on counsel for the plaintiff, and for a protective order. The underlying action, which was transferred from the Supreme Court to the Surrogate's Court, involved ownership of four works of art, which the plaintiff claimed were gifted to her by the decedent, who was her long-term romantic partner. Also at issue was the ownership of shares in a New York condominium, as well as the contents of the condominium unit, and the proceeds of a bank account.
On the return date of the motion, the plaintiff was directed to provide, for the court's in camera examination, the documents she withheld from production on the grounds of privilege, including correspondence between her and her attorney. Upon such review, the court noted that the subject documents related to invoices from the gallery at which the subject artwork was purchased.
According to the defendants, certain of these invoices were modified or revised after the decedent's death, and were given by the plaintiff to her counsel, who then provided them to defendants' counsel. More specifically, although identically dated and referring to the same works of art, one set of invoices listed the plaintiff's name alone, and a second set listed the decedent's name on two invoices, the decedent and plaintiff's name on another invoice, and the decedent's place of employment on yet another invoice. Further, it appeared that upon receipt of the invoices listing plaintiff's name alone, plaintiff's attorney prepared bills of sale and an affidavit for approval by the gallery through which plaintiff obtained the artwork.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Counsel Again Asks Second Circuit to Remove NY State Case to Federal Court
Nasdaq-Traded Blockchain Company Countersues Financer Over 'Toxic Lending Practices'
4 minute readHunter Biden Sues Fox, Ex-Chief Legal Officer Over Mock Trial Series
Law Firms Sue Clients for Unpaid Legal Fees as Big Law Collection Goals Ramp Up
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250