In a decision dated March 13, 2012 (the “Prior Decision”), the court dismissed objections to the executors’ final account for the period August 25, 2002, through February 18, 2010, based upon objectant’s failure to state a claim (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) (see Matter of Bryer, March 21, 2012, NYLJ, at 22, col 4 [Sur Ct, NY County 2012]). Thereafter, the executors filed a supplemental account for the period February 19, 2010, through August 31, 2016. Decedent’s son, who was the sole objectant to the earlier account, then filed objections to the supplemental account. Petitioners’ motion to dismiss these objections is now before the court. The Prior Decision set forth the relevant history of this estate, the estate of decedent’s predeceased wife (objectant’s mother), and the trusts related to both estates. That background will not be repeated here. Instead, only a few facts have bearing on the merits of the present motion. The first is that decedent’s will gave objectant most of his tangibles and two pre-residuary cash legacies, one outright in the amount of $100, 000, the other in trust in the amount of $2,000,000. The second is that the executors of decedent’s estate also serve as trustees of the trusts created by decedent and his wife. The third relevant fact is that a Receipt and Release executed by objectant has been filed with the motion, confirming that the executors long ago satisfied the will’s provisions for the outright distributions of the tangibles and cash to which objectant was entitled. As a general rule a pleading should be construed liberally (see Miglino v. Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc., 20 NY3d 342, 351 [2013]). This is particularly so where the pleading has been filed by a party who is, as here, pro se (see Rosen v. Raum, 164 AD2d 809, 811 [1st Dept. 1990]. However, the applicable statute still requires that “[s]tatements in a pleading…be sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the claim….” (see SCPA §302[2]). The opening lines of the objections fail to meet this minimal standard. They read as follows: “Assets in the estate belong in part to me[,] and the Bank…has failed in its fiduciary responsibilities towards me and the remaindermen involved in my father’s will.” To the extent that these opening lines refer to the uncontested fact that decedent’s will gave objectant some estate assets outright, such assertion raises no issue upon which to base a claim. The rest of objectant’s assertion merely states a bare conclusion that also fails to raise an issue that petitioners can fairly be expected to litigate. The other objections are also fatally flawed. Objectant’s charges of mismanagement by the executors in their capacity as trustees are not relevant to this estate accounting. Objectant also lacks standing to prosecute these other objections. He challenges petitioners’ receipt of executors’ commissions, but he has no stake in the outcome of such a challenge, since it is the residuary estate — in which he has no cognizable interest — that bears the cost of commissions. Nor does objectant have standing to challenge the executors’ management of the estate during the period of the supplemental accounting, since the pre-residuary trust for his benefit was funded before such period and therefore any mismanagement by the executors could not have caused his trust, no him as its primary beneficiary, any loss. For the foregoing reasons, the objections to the supplemental account are dismissed. The supplemental account shall be further supplemented by affidavit, and, as so supplemented, the executors’ final account shall be settled. Settle decree. Dated: August 12, 2019
