In re Gross
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sai Kwan Wong Ex Rel. Wong v. Daines (District Court, S.D. New York 2008)
- In re Robert G. Kay Irrevocable Supplemental Needs Trust (Vermont Superior Court 2019)
- Jennings v. Commissioner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re the Estate of Abraham XX. (N.Y. 2008)
- In re Rappaport (New York Surrogate's Court 2008)
- Acxiom Corp. v. Leathers (Ark. 1998)
- In re the Estate of Daubney (New York Surrogate's Court 1992)
- Hoelzer v. Blum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- MCDONALD, IDALYNN LUPPINO, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Trusts for McDonald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Trusts for McDonald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Accounting of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (New York Surrogate's Court 2012)
- In re the Estate of Kamp (New York Surrogate's Court 2005)
- In re the Trust under Agreement with Rubin (New York Surrogate's Court 2004)
- Frey v. O'Reagan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- In re the Conservatorship of Garbow (New York Surrogate's Court 1992)
- In re the Estate of Scatamacchia (New York Surrogate's Court 1991)
- Tutino v. Perales (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- In re the Estate of Surut (New York Surrogate's Court 1988)
- In re Roberts (N.Y. 1984)
- Carlon v. Regan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- In re Roberts (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- In re the Estate of McCaslin (New York Surrogate's Court 1982)
- Wick v. Gozigian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Moloshok v. Blum (New York Supreme Court 1981)
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
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 discretion as a matter of law.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.