Decision & Orders signed: October 3, 2023 Surrogate Mella
ESTATE OF LUCILLE B. WILLIAMS, as Grantor (12-2554/B) — Presently before the court are cross-motions filed subsequent to the issuance of a decree in this proceeding to set aside the March 29, 2009 restatement (Restatement) of the October 2, 2007 revocable trust (Trust) established by Lucille B. Williams (Grantor). The proceeding was commenced by Grantor’s five step-children (Step-Children), one of whom (Co-Petitioner) moves for an order vacating the decree, dated December 3, 2020, which dismissed the petition (Decree). Grantor’s daughter (Respondent) opposes the motion and has cross-moved for an order (1) enjoining Co-Petitioner from bringing any further motions, proceedings, or actions relating to the Trust or Respondent without court permission, and (2) sanctioning Co-Petitioner for alleged frivolous litigation tactics. Background Grantor died on October 9, 2011, at age 83, survived by Respondent. Grantor also had a son, who predeceased. The Restatement at issue altered Grantor’s prior testamentary plan to the benefit of Respondent and to the detriment of the Step-Children. Under prior instruments, on Grantor’s death, the bulk of Grantor’s estate would be distributed to Grantor’s two children and five Step-Children in equal shares. Pursuant to the Restatement, on Grantor’s death, Respondent would be the sole beneficiary (Grantor’s son had died before the Restatement was executed). The Step-Children commenced this proceeding to set aside the Restatement on the grounds of lack of capacity of Grantor and undue influence by Respondent. Respondent moved for summary judgment, and, in a decision dated October 4, 2018, the court granted the motion with respect to capacity (finding Grantor had capacity as a matter of law), but denied summary judgment as to undue influence (finding Petitioners had raised an issue of fact regarding whether Respondent had unduly influenced Grantor to execute the Restatement) (Matter of Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 32497[U] [Sur Ct, NY County 2018], affd 172 AD3d 514 [1st Dept 2019]). After trial, a jury returned a verdict of “no” on the sole remaining question of whether the execution of the Restatement was a result of undue influence by Respondent. Thereafter, the court issued the Decree, which was affirmed on appeal (Matter of Williams, 201 AD3d 510 [1st Dept 2022], Iv denied 38 NY3d 914 [2022]). While Petitioners’ appeal from the jury verdict was pending, Co-Petitioner initiated a separate action, in Supreme Court, Queens County, seeking damages against Respondent for allegedly interfering with Grantor’s annual gift-giving to the Step-Children during Grantor’s lifetime (Supreme Court Action). Respondent’s motion to dismiss the action was granted. Thereafter, Co-Petitioner filed the instant motion. After the court issued a scheduling order on the motion, Co-Petitioner requested that the court hold a conference “to negotiate a settlement and end litigation of this case.” In addition, in his motion papers, Co-Petitioner indicated that, if the court were to decline to hold a settlement conference, then he would withdraw his motion prior to the return date of the cross-motion against him for sanctions. Although the court did not hold a conference, Co-Petitioner never withdrew his motion. Discussion Although not labeled as such, Co-Petitioner’s motion is, in effect, one to be relieved from a prior judgment under CPLR 5015(a)(2), which provides in relevant part: “The court which rendered a judgment…may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just…upon the ground of…newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at trial, would probably have produced a different result and which could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under section 4404.”
