Merer v. Romoff

2 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Pace

    182 Misc. 2d 618 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999)

    Moreover, the subject trust mandates: that the cotrustees execute and file a bond in an amount to be fixed by the court (§ 4.1); that the cotrustees file an annual report in the form and manner required by section 81.31 of the Mental Hygiene Law (§ 4.4); and that such accounting shall be examined pursuant to section 81.32 of the Mental Hygiene Law by a Court Examiner appointed by the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division. A number of cases have interpreted DiGennaro (supra) as prohibiting family members, who are potential remaindermen, from serving as trustees of supplemental needs trusts. (See, Matter of Kacer, NYLJ, Nov. 1, 1994, at 33, col 1; Matter of DeVita, NYLJ, May 22, 1995, at 32, col 2; Matter of McMullen, 166 Misc 2d 117 [1995]; Merer v Romoff, 172 Misc 2d 807 [1997].) However, the cases do not address the fact that the DiGennaro trust was a Medicaid qualifying trust and not a supplemental needs trust drafted in accordance with current law.

  2. Matter of Pace

    182 Misc. 2d 618 (N.Y. Misc. 1999)

    A number of cases have interpreted DiGennaro as prohibiting family members, who are potential remaindermen, from serving as trustees of supplemental needs trusts. (SeeMatter of Kacer, NYLJ, November 1, 1994, p. 33, (col.); Matter of Devita, NYLJ, May 22, 1995, p. 32, (col. 2); Matter of McMullen, 166 Misc.2d 117, 632 N.Y.S.2d 401; Merer v. Romoff, 172 Misc.2d 807, 660 N.Y.S.2d 241). However, the cases do not address the fact that the DiGennaro trust was a medicaid qualifying trust and not a supplemental needs trust drafted in accordance with current law.