Judge Dismisses Trump Sibling's Attempt to Block Niece's Book, Finding It Will Not Affect Estate 'One Iota'
Queens County Surrogate's Court Judge Peter Kelly found that Robert Trump would not be able to successfully argue that the dispute over Mary Trump's book affects the administration of her grandfather Fred Trump's estate.
June 25, 2020 at 03:20 PM
4 minute read
Queens County Surrogate's Court Judge Peter Kelly on Thursday dismissed Robert Trump's motion for an injunction against the publication of his niece Mary Trump's upcoming book about her uncle, President Donald Trump.
Attorney Charles Harder, who is representing the president's brother, said he will file a new lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court as a result of the ruling.
Harder filed papers in Surrogate's Court Wednesday, arguing that the book would violate a confidentiality provision Mary Trump signed in the 2001 settlement agreement associated with her grandfather Fred Trump's will.
Mary Trump's book, "Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man," is set to be published July 28, according to publisher Simon & Schuster's website.
In a four-page decision, Kelly wrote that Harder's submissions suffered from "several improprieties." Harder could not seek a preliminary injunction in an action that was terminated by entry of a decree 19 years ago, Kelly found.
The petition filed Wednesday seemed to seek a declaratory judgment that Mary Trump is violating her obligations under the settlement agreement, Kelly found.
"Insofar as the petition seeks a declaratory judgment, this forum is presumptively improper as such relief should be obtained by means of an action in the Supreme Court and not a special proceeding in this court," Kelly wrote. "While it has been held that the Surrogate's Court can grant declaratory relief, such instances are rare and, crucially, involve contested issues concerning the administration of estate assets. … Such a finding cannot be made here because this controversy is a dispute regarding private rights and obligations which fall outside the parameters of the subject matter jurisdiction of the Surrogate's Court."
Even though Mary Trump and Simon & Schuster have not yet been served, Kelly found that Robert Trump would not be able to successfully argue that the current dispute affects the administration of Fred Trump's estate.
If Robert Trump should obtain relief, it would flow to him personally and not in his capacity as a fiduciary of his father's estate, Kelly wrote, finding that Mary Trump's actions are likewise being challenged by her status as a signatory of an agreement with her uncles and aunt, not as a beneficiary of her grandfather's estate.
"The irrefutable conclusion is, regardless of the outcome of this matter, the administration of this estate will not be impacted one iota," Kelly wrote.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous Jr., who is representing Mary Trump, praised the ruling in a statement.
"The court has promptly and correctly held that it lacks jurisdiction to grant the Trump family's baseless request to suppress a book of utmost public importance," Boutrous said. "We hope this decision will end the matter. Democracy thrives on the free exchange of ideas, and neither this court nor any other has authority to violate the Constitution by imposing a prior restraint on core political speech."
Harder did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
SEC Under Trump 2.0 Likely to Take More 'Measured' Enforcement Approach, Observers Say
Decision of the Day: Attorney in Social Security Case Awarded Fees, But Must Pay Client Refund Under Equal Access to Justice Act
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1A Website is Not a ‘Place.’ What Took So Long To Get This Right?
- 2From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
- 3Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Julie Cantor, Associate General Counsel at Studs, Inc.
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Chris Correnti, President & CEO & General Counsel AGC America, Inc.
- 5‘What’s Up With Morgan & Morgan?’ Law, Advertising and a Calculated Rise
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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