Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Estate of Rothko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 28, 1977Published

1Dissent

Nunez, J. (dissenting in part).

I part company with my brethren of the majority and Surrogate Midonick only on the issue of damages. The Surrogate correctly found that the executors had the power of sale (EPTL § 11-1.1, subd [b], par [5], cl [B]) and were not required to distribute in kind. The general rule is that executors, absent any authorization or direction in the testator’s will, are duty-bound to wind up the affairs of the estate except for the temporary purpose of converting the assets into money (cf. Willis v Sharp, 113 NY 586, 589; Matter of Begent, 37 AD2d 310, 311). In Matter of…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Willis v. . SharpNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Jones v. . MorganNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
  3. Menzel v. ListNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
  4. In re the Estate of RothkoNew York Surrogate's Court · 1975
  5. Bonham v. Coe, KatzNew York Court of Appeals · 1937

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API