In re Gross
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
It cannot be said that the trustee was required to invade the corpus of the trust to reimburse the Department of Mental Hygiene for costs incurred in caring for the life beneficiary. Both courts below found that testator’s intent, as expressed in the codicil establishing the trust in its current form, was that the corpus be invaded only for health-related emergencies and that routine expenses for care be paid out of the income. This was amply supported by the record. The trustee did not abuse her…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Jennings v. CommissionerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Hoelzer v. BlumAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Carlon v. ReganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- In Re the Estate of Abraham XX.New York Court of Appeals · 2008
- Tutino v. PeralesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.