In re the Est. of Morrison, 268 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
In re the Est. of Morrison, 268 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Berlin (nyappdiv, 2016-01-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Berlin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Because Leonard’s accounting, filed in his capacity as the fiduciary of Norman’s estate, was ordered by the Surrogate’s Court, the court was free to define the scope of that accounting *750 (see SCPA 2205 [1]; Matter of Morrison, 268 AD2d 435, 436 [2000]; see also SCPA 2207 [5]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tirado v. Miller
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
By contrast, circumstances where a trial court may act sua sponte include a court reconsidering its own prior interlocutory orders during the pendency of an action under CPLR 5019 (a) (see Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15, 20 [1986]; Kleinser v Astarita, 61 AD3d 597 [2009]), issuing a so-called “90 day notice” to a party neglecting its prosecution of an action under CPLR 3216 (a) and dismissing the action upon the failure to file a note of issue (see Vinikour v Jamaica Hosp., 2 AD3d 518 [2003]), appointing a receiver of matrimonial property (see Trezza v Trezza, 32 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2006]…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Estate of Nathan Morrison, Leonard M. Morrison, Nonparty Appellant Silk, Bunks & Suckle, P. C., Objectant-Respondent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 10, 2000.
268 A.D.2d 435
2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 231
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—In a proceeding for an accounting, the nonparty, Leonard M. Morrison, appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated November 9, 1998, which, inter alla, Ordered him to provide an accounting for the periods of time during which he served as the decedent’s attorney-in-fact and as administrator CTA of the decedent’s estate.

[*436] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Surrogate has the authority to require, on his own motion, a fiduciary to file an accounting in the best interests of the estate (see, SCPA 2205 [1]; Matter of Stark, 233 AD2d 449). Here, the evidence demonstrated that the appellant, as the son of the decedent and an attorney-at-law, wielded a significant amount of influence over the decedent. This control was further exacerbated by the durable power of attorney granted by the decedent to the appellant. Thus, a fiduciary relationship existed and the Surrogate properly required the appellant to file an accounting in the best interests of the estate (see, Matter of Stark, supra, at 450).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.