prudent investor rule in New York

2026Matter of Judicial Settlement of the Intermediate Account of HSBC Bank USA, NA, 20 NY3d 1056 [2013]).

2026Moreover, Articles V(D) and XIII(G) of the will afforded petitioner broad discretion in connection with management decisions and authorized her to retain the properties "for any period of time whatsoever." The prudent investor standard of care has "always been deemed subordinate to the provisions of the governing instrument" (<i>Matter of HSBC</i> <i>Bank USA, N A [Knox],</i> 98 AD3d 300, 310 [4th Dept 2012], <i>lv dismissed sub nom.</i> <i>Matter of Judicial Settlement of the Intermediate Account of HSBC Bank USA, NA,</i> 20 NY3d 1056 [2013]).</p> <p>The court's reliance on Article XIII(G) of

2024"To warrant a surcharge, the objectors must show that the trust's losses resulted from the trustee's negligence or failure to exercise such prudence" ( Matter of Hahn , 93 AD2d 583, 586 , affd 62 NY2d 821 ; see Matter of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 133 AD3d 1292, 1297 ).

2024Co. , 249 NY 335 ; cf. Powell v Bernstein , 262 AD2d 221 ; Matter of Balfe , 245 App Div 22 ).

2024Co. , 249 NY 335 ; cf. Powell v Bernstein , 262 AD2d 221 ; Matter of Balfe , 245 App Div 22 ).

2024Co. , 249 NY 335 ; cf. Powell v Bernstein , 262 AD2d 221 ; Matter of Balfe , 245 App Div 22 ).

2024"To warrant a surcharge, the objectors must show that the trust's losses resulted from the trustee's negligence or failure to exercise such prudence" ( Matter of Hahn , 93 AD2d 583, 586 , affd 62 NY2d 821 ; see Matter of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 133 AD3d 1292, 1297 ).

2018Here, the Surrogate Court's determination that JPMorgan's deference to Herbert's investment strategy while he was acting as cotrustee was made with the "reasonable care, skill and caution" required by the Prudent Investor Act (EPTL 11-2.3[b][2]) was warranted by the facts (see generally Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ).

2012Pursuant to EPTL 11-1.1 (a) (2), “unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires, . . . the term ‘trust’ means any express trust of property created by a will, deed or other instrument, whereby there is imposed upon a trustee the duty to administer property for the benefit of a named or otherwise described income or principal beneficiary, or both.” That section then excludes a number of “trusts” from the definition of a trust, such as “trusts for the benefit of creditors, resulting or constructive trusts, . . . [and] voting trusts.” The excluded list of “trusts” does not include revoc

2012Pursuant to EPTL 11-1.1 (a) (2), “unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires, . . . the term ‘trust’ means any express trust of property created by a will, deed or other instrument, whereby there is imposed upon a trustee the duty to administer property for the benefit of a named or otherwise described income or principal beneficiary, or both.” That section then excludes a number of “trusts” from the definition of a trust, such as “trusts for the benefit of creditors, resulting or constructive trusts, . . . [and] voting trusts.” The excluded list of “trusts” does not include revoc

2008Thus, Michael Preis, who testified that he had an MBA and a Ph.D. and was an assistant professor of marketing, and Peter Preis, who testified that he had a bachelor’s degree in business administration with a major in finance, as cotrastees with Cohen, were obligated to familiarize themselves with the prudent investor rule and cannot maintain their objections against Cohen for the period during which they were cotrustees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d at 203 ; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div at 869 ).

2008Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court should have granted that branch of Cohen’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the objections asserted against him as related to the period from April 26, 2001 through December 31, 2003, when the Preis brothers were his cotrastees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d 202 [1997]; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div 868 [1952], affd 306 NY 720 [1954]).

2008Thus, Michael Preis, who testified that he had an MBA and a Ph.D. and was an assistant professor of marketing, and Peter Preis, who testified that he had a bachelor’s degree in business administration with a major in finance, as cotrastees with Cohen, were obligated to familiarize themselves with the prudent investor rule and cannot maintain their objections against Cohen for the period during which they were cotrustees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d at 203 ; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div at 869 ).

2008Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court should have granted that branch of Cohen’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the objections asserted against him as related to the period from April 26, 2001 through December 31, 2003, when the Preis brothers were his cotrastees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d 202 [1997]; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div 868 [1952], affd 306 NY 720 [1954]).

2008Thus, Michael Preis, who testified that he had an MBA and a Ph.D. and was an assistant professor of marketing, and Peter Preis, who testified that he had a bachelor’s degree in business administration with a major in finance, as cotrastees with Cohen, were obligated to familiarize themselves with the prudent investor rule and cannot maintain their objections against Cohen for the period during which they were cotrustees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d at 203 ; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div at 869 ).

2008Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court should have granted that branch of Cohen’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the objections asserted against him as related to the period from April 26, 2001 through December 31, 2003, when the Preis brothers were his cotrastees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d 202 [1997]; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div 868 [1952], affd 306 NY 720 [1954]).

2008Thus, Michael Preis, who testified that he had an MBA and a Ph.D. and was an assistant professor of marketing, and Peter Preis, who testified that he had a bachelor’s degree in business administration with a major in finance, as cotrastees with Cohen, were obligated to familiarize themselves with the prudent investor rule and cannot maintain their objections against Cohen for the period during which they were cotrustees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d at 203 ; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div at 869 ).

2008Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court should have granted that branch of Cohen’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the objections asserted against him as related to the period from April 26, 2001 through December 31, 2003, when the Preis brothers were his cotrastees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d 202 [1997]; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div 868 [1952], affd 306 NY 720 [1954]).

2008Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court should have granted that branch of Cohen’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the objections asserted against him as related to the period from April 26, 2001 through December 31, 2003, when the Preis brothers were his cotrastees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d 202 [1997]; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div 868 [1952], affd 306 NY 720 [1954]).

2002Since the legal expenses incurred by defendant cannot be paid from the trust if found to be due to its own negligence (see, Matter of De Beixedon, 262 NY 168, 173-174 ), a determination on that issue must await resolution of whether defendant can be found to have complied with the prudent investor rule.

2000Here, as the court is obligated to determine the value of the stock on the date it should have been sold as determined by the prudent investor rule (see, Matter of Weston, supra, at 511) and subtract from that base the value of the stock at the time of the accounting (see, Matter of Janes, supra, at 55), the review was required to include an assessment of the value of the stock, reduced by the capital gains tax, 8 if 90% of the stock was sold within 30 days of August 10, 1987 (see, Matter of Garvin, supra).