In this proceeding to compel a distribution from the Harriet Cooper Irrevocable Inter-Vivos Trust u/a/d April 20, 2009 (the “Harriet Trust”), respondent, Avrom R. Vann, Esq., as Trustee, moves herein for a determination that the proceeding is stayed pursuant to CPLR 1015(a) by virtue of the death of Douglas Cooper, a former discretionary beneficiary of the Harriet Trust. Mr. Vann, as Co-Trustee, has also moved for the same relief in a separate proceeding by petitioner seeking a distribution from the sprinkling trust created under Article Sixth of the Last Will and Testament of the decedent (“Sprinkling Trust”) under File No. 1997-3623/K. The Harriet Trust was created for the benefit of the decedent’s son, Douglas Cooper; Douglas’ three children, Faran Cooper, Lindsay Cooper, Brenton Cooper; and their respective issue. The present value of the Harriet Trust is approximately $1,500,000.00. However, all distributions from the trust are subject to the discretion of the Trustee. The petitioner, Brenton Cooper, is seeking a combined distribution from the Harriet Trust and the Sprinkling Trust in the total amount of $500,000.00. The present value of the Sprinkling Trust is approximately $1,600,000.00. Respondent, Douglas Cooper, passed away on April 22, 2023, after this proceeding was commenced, survived by his estranged wife, Barbara A. Benisch- Cooper, and his children, Brenton, Faran and Lindsay. Douglas’ interest in the Harriet Trust terminated upon his death. Faran and Lindsay are respondents herein and have come under the jurisdiction of this Court. Movant contends that the proceeding is stayed pursuant to CPLR 1015(a) until such time as a legal representative for the estate of Douglas Cooper is appointed and substituted as a party to this proceeding. Ordinarily proceedings are stayed as a matter of law until an order of substitution is made (see CPLR 1015, 1021). However, when a party’s demise does not affect the merits of a case, there is no need for strict adherence to the requirement that the proceeding be stayed pending substitution (see HSBC Bank USA v. Ungar Family Realty Corp., 111 AD3d 673 [2nd Dept. 2013]; see also, Bova v. Vincinquerra, 139 AD2d 797 [3rd Dept. 1988]; Nieves v. 331 East 109th Street Corp., 112 AD2d 59 [1st Dept. 1985]). Here, Douglas’ death has no impact on the merits of this proceeding since his interest in the Harriet Trust terminated upon his death. In addition, to the extent Douglas’ estate has any interest in trust funds by virtue of alleged unpaid claims, the total amount of such claims is de minimis as the combined value of both trusts is in excess of $3,000,000.00. Any payment owed to Douglas’ estate would neither exhaust nor significantly deplete the corpus of the trusts available for distribution. Furthermore, any interest in trust funds owed to Douglas’ estate is adequately represented by the remaining parties to this proceeding, who represent three of the four distributees of Douglas’ estate, and share an identity of interest. Upon review of the papers submitted and after oral argument on the record, the Court finds that a stay of this proceeding pending substitution of a personal representative for Douglas’ estate is not necessary. Accordingly, the motion is denied. All parties are directed to appear for a preliminary conference on February 5, 2024 at 9:30 A.M. in Courtroom 62. This is the decision and order of the Court. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this decision and order to the parties that have appeared in this proceeding. Dated: January 24, 2024
