Estate of Brennan, Matter of
| Decision Date | 31 January 1991 |
| Citation | 169 A.D.2d 1000,565 N.Y.S.2d 277 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Jeremiah C. BRENNAN, Also Known as Geremiah C. Brennan, Deceased. Darla Vincent, as Administrator of the Estate of Jeremiah C. Brennan, Also Known as Geremiah C. Brennan, Deceased, Respondent; Roy Brennan, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kingsley & Towne (John P. Kingsley, of counsel), Catskill, for appellant.
Ralph C. Lewis, Jr., Catskill, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and CASEY, WEISS, MIKOLL and YESAWICH, JJ.
Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate's Court of Greene County (Fromer, S.), entered July 14, 1989, which, inter alia, adjudged that respondent was not entitled to any share of the proceeds from a wrongful death action involving decedent.
EPTL 4-1.4(a) provides that "[n]o distributive share in the estate of a deceased child shall be allowed to a parent who has failed or refused to provide for, or has abandoned such child". The sole issue on this appeal is whether the evidence in the record supports the application of this provision by Surrogate's Court to respondent, the father of the deceased child whose death in 1987 resulted in a wrongful death action. We agree with respondent's claim that the evidence does not support a finding of abandonment, but there is ample evidence in the record to support the finding by Surrogate's Court that respondent failed to provide for his child. The decree denying respondent any share of the proceeds resulting from the wrongful death action should, therefore, be affirmed.
Petitioner, decedent's mother, and respondent, the father, were divorced in 1978 and petitioner obtained a Family Court order in 1979 directing respondent to pay $25 per week in child support. Respondent moved to Florida and from 1979 through 1987 made child support payments totaling $350. Respondent also gave three or four presents to his son during this period. Respondent contends that he was unable to fully support his son and provided for him to the limit of his ability, but the record establishes that respondent was employed full or part time, or was receiving unemployment insurance benefits, during a substantial portion of the period when his efforts to support his child were meager at best. Respondent essentially concedes that he failed to provide for his son, arguing instead that he had no obligation to do so since petitioner's new husband voluntarily assumed the support of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Zeoli
... ... S.2d 268) and gave up his right to any and all further appeals or other proceedings in this matter. As a result of this broad and explicit waiver (see, People v. Allen, 82 N.Y.2d 761, 763, 603 ... ...
-
Cruz v. Hawley (In re Estate of Martirano)
...means to support the child and failed to do so" ( Matter of Ball , 24 A.D.3d at 1063, 807 N.Y.S.2d 163 ; see Matter of Brennan , 169 A.D.2d 1000, 1000–1001, 565 N.Y.S.2d 277 [1991] ; see also Family Ct Act § 413 ). With regard to abandonment, "a parent may be disqualified under EPTL 4–1.4(a......
-
Estate of Cassar, Matter of
... ... It is therefore apparent that notwithstanding the conflict in the opposing proof, petitioner has failed to establish as a matter of law either an abandonment or failure to support ... under EPTL 4-1.4 (see, Matter of Clark, 119 A.D.2d 947, 501 N.Y.S.2d 479; see also, Matter of Brennan, 169 A.D.2d 1000, 565 N.Y.S.2d 277). The record amply supports the finding by Supreme Court that no abandonment occurred ... Petitioner and respondent both contend that the allocations [188 A.D.2d 948] made to the other were excessive. Initially, it must be noted that the ... ...
- People v. Hayes