Opinion
2020–04214 File No. 156/10
04-26-2023
In the MATTER OF GREENBERG, deceased. Lois M. Rosenblatt, etc., respondent; v. Mark Greenberg, appellant; et al., objectants.
Bousquet Holstein, PLLC, Syracuse, NY (Cecelia R.S. Cannon and Georgia G. Crinnin of counsel), for appellant. Sweeney Reich & Bolz, LLP, Lake Success, NY (Gerard J. Sweeney of counsel), for respondent.
Bousquet Holstein, PLLC, Syracuse, NY (Cecelia R.S. Cannon and Georgia G. Crinnin of counsel), for appellant.
Sweeney Reich & Bolz, LLP, Lake Success, NY (Gerard J. Sweeney of counsel), for respondent.
BETSY BARROS, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a probate proceeding in which Lois M. Rosenblatt petitioned for judicial settlement of the final account of the estate of Laura Greenberg, the objectant Mark Greenberg appeals from a decree of the Surrogate's Court, Queens County (Peter J. Kelly, S.), dated April 8, 2020. The decree, upon an order of the same court dated May 30, 2019, granting the motion of Lois M. Rosenblatt to confirm a referee's report, judicially settled the final account.
ORDERED that the decree is affirmed, with costs.
The decedent, Laura Greenberg (hereinafter the decedent), died in October 2009, and was survived by her husband, Mark Greenberg (hereinafter the appellant), among others. At the time of her death, the decedent was involved in protracted litigation with her brother regarding the ownership and distribution of assets in the estate of their father, Harry Yaros, who had predeceased her by three years.
Lois M. Rosenblatt, the Public Administrator of Queens County (hereinafter the Public Administrator), was appointed to administer the decedent's estate. On behalf of the estate, the Public Administrator entered into a stipulation of settlement dated August 31, 2015, settling the outstanding disputes regarding Yaros's estate. Thereafter, in November 2016, the Public Administrator petitioned for judicial settlement of the final account of the estate and submitted an account to the Surrogate's Court. The appellant filed objections to the account, opposing the "distribution scheme" under the "purported" stipulation of settlement of Yaros's estate, which he alleged had damaged the decedent's estate.
Pursuant to SCPA 506(6)(a), the Surrogate's Court appointed a referee to hear and report on the matter. The referee issued a report dated September 23, 2013, which, inter alia, concluded that the Public Administrator acted within the scope of her authority in entering the stipulation of settlement, and that the stipulation of settlement was binding and enforceable. The Public Administrator then moved to confirm the referee's report. The appellant opposed, contending that the referee had failed to properly define the issues raised by his objection, and as a result had failed to consider his assertion that the Public Administrator breached her fiduciary duty by agreeing to the stipulation of settlement without knowledge of evidence supporting the estate's claims, and should be surcharged. In an order dated May 30, 2019, the Surrogate's Court granted the Public Administrator's motion, and in a decree dated April 8, 2020, the court judicially settled the final account. This appeal ensued.
"Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside" ( Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178 ; see Matter of Roach, 190 A.D.3d 978, 979, 136 N.Y.S.3d 897 ). "Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation" ( Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d at 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178 ; see Matter of Rothman, 183 A.D.3d 553, 554, 122 N.Y.S.3d 682 ; Matter of Davis, 133 A.D.3d 853, 854, 19 N.Y.S.3d 753 ). "The recommendations and report of a referee will not be disturbed when they are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility" ( Saks v. Saks, 199 A.D.3d 948, 949–950, 158 N.Y.S.3d 184 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Courtview Owners Corp. v. Courtview Holding, B.V., 193 A.D.3d 1032, 143 N.Y.S.3d 218 ; Matter of Cincotta, 139 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 32 N.Y.S.3d 610 ).
Here, the referee clearly defined the issues as raised by the objections filed by the appellant. The referee's conclusion that there was no basis to set aside the stipulation of settlement was amply supported by the record. Moreover, in response to the appellant's belated request for additional relief against the Public Administrator, the referee entertained supplemental submissions relevant to the appellant's claim that the Public Administrator had breached her duty to the estate. The referee properly concluded that the record did not support the allegation that the Public Administrator had ignored certain evidence prior to entering the settlement. Since the record substantially supported the referee's findings and determination, the Surrogate's Court properly granted the Public Administrator's motion to confirm the report (see Saks v. Saks, 199 A.D.3d at 950, 158 N.Y.S.3d 184 ; Matter of Cincotta, 139 A.D.3d at 1059, 32 N.Y.S.3d 610 ).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
BARROS, J.P., MALTESE, DOWLING and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.