In re Costantino

Summary

The court affirmed an order approving the final account of the Niagara County Public Administrator and awarding attorney’s fees and disbursements to the petitioner’s attorney. Although the Surrogate’s Court improperly applied judicial estoppel, the court held that the evidence rebutted the presumption that the joint bank accounts created survivorship rights and established that they were convenience accounts. The court also upheld the setoff for expenditures benefiting the objectant and the award of compensation to counsel whose work benefited the estate.

Holdings

1. The Surrogate erred in applying judicial estoppel because the objectant's silence in the unrelated matrimonial proceeding did not establish that she had taken a contrary position, and the settlement of that proceeding did not constitute the prior success necessary for judicial estoppel.
2. The Surrogate properly determined that the accounts were convenience accounts because petitioner rebutted the presumption under Banking Law § 675 by establishing that the accounts had been opened in that form for convenience only.
3. The Surrogate did not abuse her discretion in awarding compensation to petitioner's attorney for services that ultimately benefited the estate.
4. The Surrogate did not impose sanctions for the objectant's purported misconduct in the unrelated matrimonial proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Surrogate properly applied judicial estoppel based on the objectant's failure to list the joint accounts as assets in an unrelated divorce proceeding.
2. Whether the evidence rebutted the presumption under Banking Law § 675 and established that the joint accounts were opened as convenience accounts rather than with rights of survivorship.
3. Whether the Surrogate properly awarded compensation to petitioner's attorney as an estate expense.
4. Whether the Surrogate imposed sanctions for the objectant's conduct in the unrelated matrimonial proceeding.

Disposition

affirmed