N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Miller
| Docket Number | Index No. 653538/2022,Motion Seq. No. 001 |
| Decision Date | 12 October 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 NY Slip Op 33745 (U) |
| Parties | NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. DAWN B MILLER, JOHN S RAND, JENNIFER RAND Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
MOTION DATE 06/22/2023
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 49, 50 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL.
This action arises out of a dispute over a decedent's bank account held with New York Life Insurance Company. New York Life Insurance Company commenced this action in order to resolve the dispute as to ownership over this account, naming as Co-Defendants decedent's wife Dawn Miller ("Dawn") and decedent's daughter and son in law from his previous marriage, respectively, Jennifer Rand and John Rand ("The Rands").[1] Dawn filed cross claims against the Rands for breach of their fiduciary duty. In response, the Rands filed a motion to dismiss Dawn's cross claims. Dawn then opposed and filed a cross motion to disqualify the Rand's counsel, Gary E. Bashian, Esq.
On May 4, 2006, decedent Henry G. Miller ("decedent") opened a bank account with New York Life Insurance Company. The account listed decedent's wife, Dawn Miller, as joint tenant with rights of survivorship. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, page 2. Prior to marriage, the parties executed a prenuptial agreement, in which Dawn disclaimed all rights to the estate. In 2020, Henry Miller passed away, and thereafter Dawn sought disbursement of the contents of the bank account from New York Life Insurance. The Rands, as co-executors of decedent's estate, intervened to stop the disbursement to Dawn. The Rands alleged the account was established "for convenience" and therefore is property of the estate precluding Dawn from claiming the contents of the account. In order to resolve ownership over the account, New York Life Insurance Company commenced this action.
When considering a motion to dismiss based upon CPLR § 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the alleged facts as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine whether the facts alleged fit into any cognizable legal theory. Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 [1994], On a motion to dismiss the court "merely examines the adequacy of the pleadings", the court "accept as true each and every allegation made by plaintiff and limit our inquiry to the legal sufficiency of plaintiff s claim." Davis v Boeheim, 24 N.Y.3d 262, 268 (internal citations omitted).
To state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, plaintiffs must allege that (1) defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, (2) defendant committed misconduct, and (3) they suffered damages caused by that misconduct. Burry v. Madison Park Owner LLC, 84 A.D.3d 699, 700 [1st Dept 2011], The Rands allege Dawn's claim for breach of fiduciaiy duty must be dismissed because first, Dawn is alleging acts of wrongdoing which occurred prior to decedent's death, and thus the Rands were not yet fiduciaries of the estate, and second, because Dawn is not a beneficiary under the will pursuant to the prenuptial agreement. In opposition, Dawn contends that as she was left certain personal property in decedent's will, she is a beneficiary of the estate and thus the Rands owe her a fiduciaiy duty as co-executors of the will.
Dawn alleges the Rands breached their fiduciaiy duty by "exerting undue influence over the defendant." However, Dawn has sued the Rands solely in their capacity as executors of the will and not in their individual capacity. Dawn's allegation that the Rands exerted undue influence over the defendant would by definition have to have occurred while decedent was alive, at which point the Rands would not have been executors of the will yet. Therefore, this aspect of Dawn's cross claim for breach of fiduciary duty is dismissed.
Next, as it pertains to Dawn's claim that the Rands are in breach of their fiduciary duty to her by allegedly interfering with her access to the New York Life Insurance bank account, again turns on whether the Rand's owed Dawn a duty. Pursuant to the Surrogate Court decision, because of the prenuptial agreement between Dawn and the Decedent, Dawn's takings under the will are limited to the specific gifts bequeathed to her. While Dawn is correct that she is a beneficiary with regard to these specific gifts, it does not follow that the Rands owe her a fiduciaiy duty with respect to the rest of the will, to which she is not a beneficiary. Therefore, the Court finds Dawn's cross claim for breach of fiduciary duty is dismissed.
In order to make a claim for a constructive trust, a party must establish the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship, a promise, express or implied, a transfer made in reliance on that promise, and unjust enrichment. Bankers Sec. Life Ins. Soc'y v Shakerdge, 49 N.Y.2d 939, 940 [198...
To continue reading
Request your trial