Surrogate's Court

Subscribe to Surrogate's Court via RSS

On February 14, 2025, I will be speaking at the Suffolk Academy of Law’s annual Elder Law Update, addressing current developments in artificial intelligence (“AI”) that are relevant to trusts and estates practice, among other topics.  In preparing for that presentation, I came across a recent Surrogate’s Court, Saratoga County, decision in Matter of Weber, in which the court found that a party’s counsel has a duty to disclose to the court the fact that the party’s hearing evidence has been generated by AI.  I now address the Weber court’s AI-based findings below.

AI has been “defined as being any technology that uses machine learning, natural language processing, or any other computational mechanism to simulate human intelligence, including document generation, evidence creation or analysis, and legal research, and/or the capability of computer systems or algorithms to imitate intelligent human behavior” (Matter of Weber, 220 NYS3d 620, 635 [Sur Ct, Saratoga County 2024]).  It “can be either generative or assistive in nature” (id.).  Generative AI is “artificial intelligence that is capable of generating new content (such as images or text) in response to a submitted prompt (such as a query) by learning from a large reference database of examples” (id.).  AI “assistive materials are any document or evidence prepared with the assistance of AI technologies, but not solely generated thereby” (id.).Continue Reading Does Counsel Have a Duty to Disclose to a Surrogate’s Court the Fact That Hearing Evidence That Counsel Proffers Has Been Generated by Artificial Intelligence?

When reforming a will or trust, the Surrogate’s Court “changes the language of the will [or trust instrument] itself by the addition or deletion of words in an attempt to conform [the instrument] to the decedent’s intent” (Matter of Stahle, NYLJ, Jan. 23, 2002, at 32 [Sur Ct, Onondaga County]).  Historically speaking, courts have been “hesitant to reform wills [and trusts,] unless the reformation effectuates the [testators and grantors’] intent” (Matter of Brill, NYLJ, Aug. 17, 2017, at 23 [Sur Ct, Bronx County]; Matter of Dousmanis, 190 AD3d 548, 549 [1st Dep’t 2021]).

However, when the reformation of a will or trust will result in a settlement of litigation, courts have been less hesitant to reform wills and trust instruments (Marilyn G. Ordover & Charles F. Gibbs, “Correcting Mistakes in Wills and Trusts”, NYLJ, Aug. 6, 1998, at 25).  This is because New York State has a strong public “policy encouraging family settlements” (Matter of Harburg, NYLJ, Aug. 12, 1997, at 26 [Sur Ct, New York County]).  Thus, in cases in which the interested parties have agreed to reform wills or trusts in order to achieve settlements, courts repeatedly have approved of the reformations to which the parties have stipulated (Matter of Schmitt, NYLJ, July 3, 2000, at 1 [Sur Ct, Westchester County]; Matter of Schwartz, NYLJ, Jan. 22, 1992, at 25 [Sur Ct, Westchester County]; Matter of Wilkie, NYLJ, Jan. 17, 1992, at 35 [Sur Ct, Westchester County]).      Continue Reading Creative Writing: Reforming Wills and Trusts to Achieve Settlements

While the removal of a fiduciary has long been the subject of Surrogate’s Court opinions, it is not often that the Appellate Division weighs in on the issue. However, in Matter of Epstein, the Second Department did just that, and issued an opinion that serves as an important guidepost for the kind of conduct that warrants removal. Ilene Cooper discusses the decision in our latest post. …
Continue Reading Appellate Division Addresses the Removal of a Fiduciary

Courts greatly appreciate when parties settle their disputes by agreement.  Settlements alleviate the courts of the burden of overwhelming caseloads, and further the public policy of encouraging parties to order their affairs by contract rather than relying on statute and common law.  As the Surrogate’s Court recently reiterated in Matter of Eckert, “stipulations of…

When thinking of the Surrogate’s Court, jurisdiction over eviction proceedings does not normally come to mind. Yet, over the past 18 months, the Surrogates of New York and Bronx counties have found cause to order an eviction from estate or trust property in order to facilitate its sale. Ilene Cooper discusses those cases in our latest post.
Continue Reading The Remedy of Eviction in the Surrogate’s Court

It is easy to be cynical about the “pots and pans,” “tchotchkes,” and “junk” – – the property that is often divided in a contentious manner at the bitter end of an estate litigation, or sometimes forgotten after years of litigation. An ongoing dispute in one of my cases led me to reflect on a…