The Least Restrictive Way to Limit Letters of Administration
"In New York, although a practitioner might expect the Surrogate's Courts to act uniformly as part of the New York State Unified Court System, Surrogate's Courts in various counties may operate differently when assessing petitions. One example is with respect to restrictions placed on letters of administration. While under-restricting letters of administration may result in inadequate safeguards on the interests of non-consenting distributees, over-restricting letters could result in (i) a hindrance of a fiduciary's powers statutorily granted under EPTL §11–1.1, (ii) an unnecessary burden on the court's limited resources caused by additional applications to remove the restrictions, (iii) delayed administration of estates, and (iv) conflicts with the legislative intent as expressed in the Bennett commission."
November 03, 2024 at 10:00 AM
10 minute read
In New York, although a practitioner might expect the Surrogate's Courts to act uniformly as part of the New York State Unified Court System, Surrogate's Courts in various counties may operate differently when assessing petitions. One example is with respect to restrictions placed on letters of administration. While under-restricting letters of administration may result in inadequate safeguards on the interests of non-consenting distributees, over-restricting letters could result in (i) a hindrance of a fiduciary's powers statutorily granted under EPTL §11–1.1, (ii) an unnecessary burden on the court's limited resources caused by additional applications to remove the restrictions, (iii) delayed administration of estates, and (iv) conflicts with the legislative intent as expressed in the Bennett commission.
In 1961, New York legislature created the temporary state commission on the modernization, revision, and simplification of the laws of estates, commonly referred to as the Bennett commission (Trusts and Estates Law; Statutory Powers of Fiduciaries Versus Court Oversight, N.Y.L.J, Nov. 14, 2006, at 3, col. 1). A goal of the Bennett commission when enacting legislation was to grant fiduciaries broad powers to administer decedents' estates pursuant to the provisions of EPTL §11–1.1 and minimize unneeded court intervention (Id.). Subsequently, there have been court decisions denying petitions wherein fiduciaries seek permission to obtain powers they already possess, and instead holding that the surrogate generally should not usurp fiduciaries' powers (See, e.g., In re Osterndorf, 75 Misc. 2d 730 [Sur. Ct. Nassau County 1973] [holding that the administrator should exercise business judgment utilizing the powers already afforded to him]; In re Blackman, 2007 WL 7625228 [Sur. Ct. Kings County 2007] [holding that fiduciaries should "exercise the authority given to them and not seek court approval"… "unless there was a real need"], Matter of Hamilton, N.Y.L.J., Jan. 29, 2014, at 22, col. 6 [Sur. Ct. Bronx County 2014] [stating that "another court order is not necessary to permit the administrator to exercise her rights and responsibilities as a fiduciary" and "[i]f that were so, duplicitous applications would waste the court's time and overly tax the court's limited resources"]). The more letters are over-restricted, the more fiduciaries must return to Surrogate's Courts for amendments and/or additional proceedings. Thus, in our view, it is important for Surrogate's Courts to find the least restrictive way to limit letters of administration within the boundaries of the law while still providing sufficient protection for non-consenting distributees of the estate.
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