IN THE MATTER OF JOEL S. STERN AS ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR &C. OF OSCAR
OBREGON, DECEASED, &C. JOEL S. STERN, APPELLANT, v. MORGAN STANLEY GROUP
INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
91 N.Y.2d 591, 696 N.E.2d 984, 673 N.Y.S.2d 972 (1998).
May 14, 1998
1 No. 63
(98 NY Int. 0057)
Decided May 14, 1998
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Joel S. Stern, for appellant.
Eugene F. Farabaugh, for respondent Barclays Bank PLC.
T. Randolph Harris, for respondent Morgan Stanley
Group.
BELLACOSA, J.:
This is a discovery, turn over proceeding brought by an ancillary
administrator (Stern) in New York County concerning property in the
Cayman Islands, all with respect to an estate being administered
primarily in Mexico. This Court must determine whether the subject
matter jurisdiction of the New YorkSurrogate's Court extends to the
Cayman Islands assets of decedent, a Texas resident and Mexican
domiciliary, when the issuance of ancillary letters of administration
in New York is predicated solely on a small bank account in this
State.
This proceeding was commenced as part of the ancillary administration.
It seeks discovery for the location and turnover of approximately
$1,300,000 allegedly transferred after decedent's suicide on April 20,
1990. These assets moved from his investment account with Morgan
Stanley Asset Management, Ltd. in London (Morgan Stanley London) to a
trust allegedly created before his death through Barclays Private Bank
& Trust Limited Ltd. (Barclays) in the Cayman Islands.
The petition was amended to pursue particularly the discovery and
turnover of the trust assets now in the Cayman Islands. Surrogate's
Court denied motions by respondents, Barclays and Morgan Stanley, to
dismiss the ancillary administrator's amended petition. The Appellate
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF JOEL S. STERN AS ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR &C.
for respondent Morgan Stanley Group.
This is a discovery, turn over proceeding brought by an ancillary administrator in New York
This Court must determine whether the subject matter jurisdiction of the New YorkSurrogate's
These assets moved from his investment account with Morgan Stanley Asset Management, Ltd. in
Surrogate's Court denied motions by respondents, Barclays and Morgan Stanley, to dismiss the
Obregon deposited over $1,300,000 into the London account through Mellon Bank in New York.
It allowed Barclays Private Bank "considerable discretion with respect to the distributions
It held that, other than the de minimis sum in the New York bank account that served as the
NY 375).
The codification of the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act in 1966 was intended to implement the
Matter of Piccione (57 NY2d 278) encapsulates the view that, by these grants of power, the
The Surrogate's Court Procedure Act also expressly declares that "he surrogate's court of any
In 1984, Sections 205 (domiciliaries), 206, and 207 were enacted collectively to "substitute
This reformulation does not represent a generalized extraterritorial expansion of subject
Critically, however, none of these provisions including the linchpin of appellant's argument
Thus, in context and taken as a whole, the subject matter jurisdiction of New York's
This conclusion is supported by the proposition that New York, in making a determination
|
