Estate of Singleton
| Decision Date | 14 August 1978 |
| Citation | 408 N.Y.S.2d 691,96 Misc.2d 169 |
| Court | New York Surrogate Court |
| Parties | ESTATE of Maria M. SINGLETON, Deceased. Surrogate's Court, Bronx County |
Spatt & Bauman, P. C., New York City (Bert Bauman, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.
Kevin B. McGrath, New York City, guardian ad litem.
BERTRAM R. GELFAND, Surrogate.
At issue in this proceeding to account for the proceeds of the settlement of an action for wrongful death based upon medical malpractice, is the allocation of the settlement proceeds between the decedent's two distributees. It has been stipulated between the parties that they waive their right to a hearing and present all issues for determination based upon the written submissions that have been filed.
Decedent died on June 16, 1971 at the age of approximately 27 years. Her surviving distributees are her husband, who was 29 years of age at the time of her death, and her son, who was one year old, at that time. Decedent was a housewife who was not otherwise employed.
The recovery at issue totals $290,000. Petitioner contends that the recovery should be allocated in accordance with the formula set forth in Matter of Kaiser, 198 Misc. 582, 100 N.Y.S.2d 218. If this formula were applied as stated by petitioner, he would receive 69.4% Of the estate and the infant the remaining 30.6%. It is the contention of the infant's guardian ad litem that taking into account the projected rate of inflation, it would cost $100,547.67 to support the infant until he attains age 21, and accordingly that sum should first be paid to the infant and the balance of the estate should then be allocated according to the formula contained in Matter of Kaiser, supra. The position taken by the guardian ad litem is based upon figures set forth in the Consumer Expenditure Survey of the United States Department of Agriculture setting forth the cost of raising a child, not including a college education, and applying to this figure the Consumer Price Index compiled by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the position of the guardian ad litem were adopted it would result in the infant receiving approximately 67% Of the net distributable estate, and the petitioner the remaining 33% Thereof.
Projecting the respective relative pecuniary benefits which a surviving spouse and an infant child would have received from a deceased wife and mother, who had no income or assets, had she lived, must lead at best to a result that cannot be classified as a product of an exact science. Matter of Kaiser, supra, presents a formula based upon the expected number of years of dependency of each distributee utilizing presumptions that the infant would not receive any pecuniary benefit from his mother after age 21 and that her spouse would receive pecuniary benefit for so long as he and his spouse both lived. Obviously, any such rigid mathematical formula is subject to variance based upon the numerous varying factors which are indicative of pecuniary loss in the circumstances of each case. Consideration has to be given to the relationship existing between decedent and his distributees (Murphy v. Erie R. R. Co., 202 N.Y. 242, 95 N.E. 699), the situation of the distributees and their condition in life (Grasso v. State of New York, 177 Misc. 690, 31 N.Y.S.2d 398, affd. 264 App.Div. 745, 34 N.Y.S.2d 440, affd. 289 N.Y. 552, 43 N.E.2d 530), the decedent voluntarily providing beneficial services to the distributees (Gross v. Abraham, 306 N.Y. 525, 119 N.E.2d 370), and all other evidence showing a disposition on the part of the decedent to provide assistance to a distributee (Loetsch v. New York City Omnibus Corp., 291 N.Y. 308, 52 N.E.2d 448). The blind application of any mathematical formula based on statistical averages cannot possibly lead to an equitable apportionment of pecuniary loss in every case. In some cases the inherent character of the formula renders it inequitable. Certainly it would be difficult to conclude that where a decedent was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acquafredda, Matter of
...formula calls for (e.g., Matter of Inglima, 13 Misc.2d 910, 178 N.Y.S.2d 473 [widow and infant given equal shares]; Matter of Singleton, 96 Misc.2d 169, 408 N.Y.S.2d 691 [widower and child given equal shares]; Estate of Lisanti, NYLJ, Nov. 29, 1979, at 14, col 4 [reducing widower's larger s......
-
Estate of Feld, Matter of
...child receives a sum substantially in excess of what the age difference and relative injury warrant. See, e.g., Matter of Singleton, 96 Misc.2d 169, 408 N.Y.S.2d 691 (1978); Matter of Maerkle, 44 Misc.2d 617, 254 N.Y.S.2d 411 (1964); Estate of Garth Vernon Sewell, N.Y.L.J., 10/28/87, p. 14,......
-
Estate of Vasquez
...v. New York City Omnibus Corp., 291 N.Y. 308, 52 N.E.2d 448; Murphy v. Erie R.R. Co., 202 N.Y. 242, 95 N.E. 699; Matter of Singleton, 96 Misc.2d 169, 408 N.Y.S.2d 691; Matter of Mairowitz, 90 Misc.2d 854, 396 N.Y.S.2d 146; Grasso v. State of New York, 177 Misc. 690, 31 N.Y.S.2d 398; affd. 2......
-
Geddes v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 88-CV-3513 (ASC).
...children and not to the surviving spouse. Application of Adler, 869 F.Supp. 1021, 1029 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). See also Estate of Singleton, 96 Misc.2d 169, 408 N.Y.S.2d 691 (1978) (The Court departed from the Kaiser formula to increase the infant's share from thirty percent to fifty percent, ther......