ADDITIONAL CASES Liliane Peck, as Preliminary Executor of the Estate of Norman L. Peck, Deceased, Plaintiff v. Ian S. Peck, Defendant, 2016-1617/B. The above two contested actions originally filed in Supreme Court, New York County were later transferred to this court based on pending issues pertaining to decedent’s estate and inter vivos trust (the “Trust”). By order dated February 15, 2018, the Surrogate appointed the Hon. Lee L. Holzman as special referee to hear and report with respect to issues presented in two contested motions for summary determination made by plaintiff, decedent’s surviving spouse, who is also the preliminary executor of decedent’s estate. In one of the actions, plaintiff seeks to collect, under two promissory notes executed in 2014 and 2015, respectively, a sum of nearly $3 million which decedent allegedly loaned to his son and to a limited liability corporation (the “LLC”) wholly owned by the son. In the other action, the preliminary executor seeks (1) to recoup the $100,000 loaned to his son via another promissory note executed by the son in 2013, and (2) to enforce the son’s guarantee of a 2015 loan to his LLC. The special referee has issued a comprehensive report, dated May 29, 2018 (the “Report”) on plaintiff’s motion for summary determination in each of the two actions, and on the son’s cross- motion to strike pursuant to CPLR 3024(b). Plaintiff moves to confirm the Report. For present purposes, there is no need to restate the detailed background described in the Report. Instead, a general observation will suffice. The parties’ submissions are dominated by references to the pending probate of decedent’s 2006 will, under which he bequeaths his multi-million-dollar estate to the Trust, and to the terms of the Trust instrument as amended and restated by decedent in 2016. The complex provisions of the Trust principally benefit his son, his daughter, their descendants, and the surviving spouse. The special referee was obligated to discern and painstakingly dispose of a variety of the parties’ arguments, all of which culminated in a 31-page analysis presented to the Court. However, the parties’ submissions cannot obscure a central and conclusive fact: if ever there were a case for the speedy justice contemplated by the legislature when it enacted CPLR 3213, it is the case presented by the three unambiguous promissory notes at issue. The defense has failed to offer any proof of the alleged invalidity of the notes, or any plausible theory on the merits to support their arguments. Accordingly, the court agrees with the special referee that each of the two actions is ripe for summary disposition in favor of plaintiff. The court adopts the entire Report, finding it to be thoroughly considered and soundly reasoned. Settle decrees consistent with the Report. This decision constitutes the order of the court. Dated: September 30, 2019
