Majority
In a probate proceeding in which Laura Castellucci petitioned pursuant to SCPA 2205 to compel a trust accounting, the cotrustees appeal (1) from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, S.), dated July 10, 2014, which denied their motion to dismiss the petition for lack of standing, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated December 9, 2014, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 10, 2014, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated December 9, 2014, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated December 9, 2014, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the petitioner, payable by the Vincent J. Castellucci Irrevocable Trust.
Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied their motion to dismiss the petition for lack of standing. As the appellants made a pre-answer motion to dismiss on the ground that the petitioner lacked standing, the initial burden was on the appellants to establish, prima facie, the petitioner’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845 , 847 [2015]; J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Coleman, 119 AD3d 841 , 842 [2014]; HSBC Mtge. Corp. [USA] v MacPherson, 89 AD3d 1061 , 1062 [2011]). The appellants met their initial burden by demonstrating that Ann S.' Castellucci had exercised her power of appointment under the Trust. However, in opposition to the motion the petitioner’s submissions raised questions of fact as to her standing (see Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Vitellas, 131 AD3d 52 , 59-60 [2015]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d at 847 ; US Bank N.A. v Faruque, 120 AD3d 575 , 578 [2014]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680 , 683 [2012]). Specifically, the petitioner averred that the parties entered into an agreement to terminate the Trust and that distributions of Trust assets were made to her. Under these circumstances, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied the motion to dismiss so that the parties could engage in discovery (see SCPA 103 [39]; 2205).
The appellants’ remaining contentions, including that the
Dillon, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Coleman 119 AD3d 841 at 842 p. 827
- HSBC Mortgage Corp. v. MacPherson 89 AD3d 1061 at 1062 p. 827
- Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Vitellas 131 AD3d 52 at 59-60 p. 827
- US Bank National Ass'n v. Faruque 120 AD3d 575 at 578 p. 827
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Haller 100 AD3d 680 at 683 p. 827