Pertie v. Chase Manhattan Bank
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Estates of Covert (N.Y. 2001)
- In re the Estates of Covert (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- In re the Estate of Dorsey (New York Surrogate's Court 1994)
- In re Demesyeux (New York Surrogate's Court 2013)
- In re the Estate of Alexis (New York Surrogate's Court 2006)
- In re the Estate of Davidson (New York Surrogate's Court 1998)
- Children of Bedford, Inc. v. Petromelis (N.Y. 1991)
- In re the Estate of Rose (New York Surrogate's Court 1988)
- Miller v. Continental Insurance (N.Y. 1976)
- In re the Estate of Bach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
- In re the Estate of Bach (New York Surrogate's Court 1975)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order modified by annulling the direction that judgment be entered in favor of American Mental Health Foundation and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable, out of the trust estate, and the case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: The Appellate Division correctly held that because of his homicidal act, Dalton could not benefit from the trust created by his victim (Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N. Y. 506; Matter of Kaplan, 49 Misc 2d 335) and that this disqualification extends with equal force to Dalton’s nominee, Gonynor. However, we find no appropriate basis for differentiating between Gonynor and the other contingent beneficiary, American Mental Health Foundation, which likewise was a nominee of Dalton. The rights of both these beneficiaries had their genesis in the nomination by Dalton followed by his felonious act and would not have ripened had it not been for his conceded wrongdoing. Hnder these circumstances and where such a wrongdoer has procured a gift to others not shown to have been privy to his wrong, but nominees nonetheless, their rights likewise are to be divested in favor of those who would benefit had the wrong not been inflicted.
Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Bubke, Bbeitel, Jasen, Gabbielli, Jones and Wachtleb.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.