Hostility as a Basis for Removal of a Fiduciary Without a Hearing
Where a fiduciary's behavior clearly demonstrates entrenched hostility toward beneficiaries or a co-fiduciary, summary removal has been held appropriate.
July 05, 2023 at 09:45 AM
6 minute read
Courts show great deference to a testator's choice of fiduciary. While a court may remove a fiduciary for cause, the Court of Appeals has made clear that this power should be exercised "sparingly" and that a fiduciary is usually entitled to a hearing first. See Matter of Duke, 87 N.Y.2d 465, 473 (1996). Nonetheless, the court has also recognized that, under SCPA Section 719, "the Surrogate is clearly granted the exceptional authority to summarily remove executors … [where misconduct] is established by undisputed facts or concessions, or where the fiduciary's in-court conduct causes such facts to be within the court's knowledge …" Where a fiduciary's behavior clearly demonstrates entrenched hostility toward beneficiaries or a co-fiduciary, summary removal has been held appropriate.
SCPA Section 719 describes circumstances in which the Surrogate may remove a fiduciary without a pleading or the issuance of process. The grounds include, among other things, a fiduciary's felony conviction, commingling of estate assets with his or her own funds, or failure to account pursuant to a court order. The statute also permits removal where "any of the facts provided in Section 711 are brought to the attention of the court." In turn, SCPA Section 711 permits service of process and a petition upon a fiduciary seeking their removal for any of 12 specified reasons. These include, for example, a fiduciary's dishonesty, waste, improvidence, want of understanding, failure to comply with a court order, failure to inform the court of a change in address, substance abuse or removal of property from the state without court permission.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllCaught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
8 minute readGift and Estate Tax Opportunities and Potential Traps in 2025 for Our New York High Net Worth Clients
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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