New York Court of Appeals, 1996

Vogt v. Witmeyer

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 21, 1996 · Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur

665 N.E.2d 189; 87 N.Y.2d 998; 642 N.Y.S.2d 619; 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 294 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Aetna Casualty And Surety Co. v. Aniero Concrete Co. (2d Cir. 2005)
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Aniero Concrete Co. (2d Cir. 2005)
Weizmann Institute of Science v. Neschis (District Court, S.D. New York 2002)
dewdney v. duncan (Vermont Superior Court 2024)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Oliver (District Court, N.D. New York 2021)
Matter of Radio Drama Network, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Barclay v. Castruccio (Md. 2020)
Briggs v. Briggs (S.D. 2019)
Milligan v. Bifulco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
O'Sullivan v. Hallock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
O'Sullivan v. Hallock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Jacobs v. Kay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re of the Arbitration between Town of Evans & International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Heisler v. City of Buffalo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Snyder v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Lake Claire Homeowners Ass'n v. Rosenberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff had been designated as a one-fifth remainder beneficiary in an August 1986 amendment to a revocable trust created by the settlor six years earlier. Unbeknownst to plaintiff, the settlor executed a fourth amendment in December 1988, removing plaintiff as beneficiary, which remained in effect at the settlor’s death three years later. Plaintiff brought this action against the settlor’s trustee, her attorneys and one of the remainder beneficiaries for allegedly depriving her of her remainder interest in the trust, asserting separate causes of action based on theories of tortious interference with prospective inheritance, prima facie tort, conspiracy, ratification and mistake. Supreme Court dismissed all causes of action and the Appellate Division affirmed (212 AD2d 1013).

Plaintiff seeks reinstatement of her cause of action grounded upon tortious interference with prospective inheritance. New York, however, has not recognized a right of action for tortious interference with prospective inheritance (see, Hutchins v Hutchins, 7 Hill 104), and, in any event, such a cause of action would require that the interference be accomplished by some type of independently tortious conduct (see, Restatement [Second] of Torts § 774B). Except for purely conclusory assertions, plaintiff failed to plead any tortious acts by defendants causing the settlor to modify the trust.

*1000 Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.