SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

506
CA 13-01858
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P. J . , CENTRA, FAHEY, SCONI ERS, AND VALENTI NO, J J .


I N THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF WI LLI AM H.
SEWARD, ALSO KNOWN AS WI LLI AM H. SEWARD, I I I ,
DECEASED.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RAY S. MESSENGER, PETI TI ONER- RESPONDENT;

FRED L. EMERSON FOUNDATI ON, I NC. , APPELLANT.
HI SCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, SYRACUSE ( J ON P. DEVENDORF OF COUNSEL) , FOR
APPELLANT.
BOYLE & ANDERSON, P. C. , AUBURN ( ROBERT K. BERGAN OF COUNSEL) , FOR
PETI TI ONER- RESPONDENT.

Appeal f r oma decr ee of t he Sur r ogat e s Cour t , Cayuga Count y
( Thomas G. Leone, A. S. ) , dat ed J une 28, 2013. The decr ee deni ed t he
mot i on of Fr ed L. Emer son Foundat i on, I nc. , t o di smi ss t he pet i t i on
f or appoi nt ment of an admi ni st r at or c. t . a. and gr ant ed Let t er s of
Admi ni st r at i on c. t . a. t o pet i t i oner , l i mi t ed t o enf or cement of a
char i t abl e gi f t under t he l ast wi l l and t est ament of Wi l l i amH.
Sewar d, al so known as Wi l l i amH. Sewar d, I I I .
I t i s her eby ORDERED t hat t he decr ee so appeal ed f r omi s
unani mousl y r ever sed on t he l aw wi t hout cost s, t he mot i on i s gr ant ed
and t he pet i t i on i s di smi ssed wi t hout pr ej udi ce i n accor dance wi t h t he
f ol l owi ng Memor andum: Wi l l i amH. Sewar d, I I I ( decedent ) i s t he
gr andson of Wi l l i amH. Sewar d, a f or mer gover nor of t he St at e of New
Yor k and t he Uni t ed St at es Secr et ar y of St at e dur i ng t he Ci vi l War .
Decedent devi sed t o appel l ant , Fr ed L. Emer son Foundat i on, I nc.
( Emer son Foundat i on) , t he Sewar d f ami l y home i n Aubur n, and al so
bequeat hed such of i t s cont ent s t hat decedent s wi f e chose not t o
keep. I ncl uded i n t he bequest was a pai nt i ng by Thomas Col e ent i t l ed
Por t age Fal l s on t he Genesee, whi ch was pr esent ed t o Wi l l i amH.
Sewar d when he was gover nor of t he St at e of New Yor k. Decedent s
est at e was cl osed i n 1955. Wi t h t he appr oval of Sur r ogat e s Cour t by
decr ee, t he Emer son Foundat i on t r ansf er r ed owner shi p of t he r eal t y and
i t s cont ent s, wi t h t he except i on of t he pai nt i ng, t o t he Sewar d House
Museum( museum) i n 2008. The Emer son Foundat i on r et ai ned owner shi p of
t he pai nt i ng, whi ch was di spl ayed at t he museum. The decr ee pr ovi des
t hat t he pai nt i ng wi l l not be t r ansf er r ed t o any per son or ent i t y
ot her t han [ t he museum] wi t hout f i r st obt ai ni ng l eave of t he cour t .
I n 2013, t he Emer son Foundat i on s boar d of di r ect or s and t he museum s
boar d of di r ect or s det er mi ned t hat i t was not pr act i cal or pr udent t o
keep t he val uabl e ar t wor k i n t he museum, wher eupon t he pai nt i ng was
-2- 506
CA 13-01858
r emoved f r omt he museumt o an undi scl osed l ocat i on and a r epr oduct i on
was commi ssi oned. Thi s pr oceedi ng f ol l owed.
Pet i t i oner , t he gr eat - gr eat - gr andson of Wi l l i amH. Sewar d and
gr eat - nephew of decedent , sought l et t er s of admi ni st r at i on c. t . a. i n
or der t o commence an act i on t o seek an i nj unct i on t o pr event t he sal e
or t r ansf er of t he pai nt i ng t o any per son or ent i t y ot her t han t he
museum( see SCPA 1418 [ 3] ) . By or der t o show cause, t he Emer son
Foundat i on sought t o i nt er vene i n t he pr oceedi ng and t o di smi ss t he
pet i t i on. Accor di ng t o t he Emer son Foundat i on, t he pet i t i on shoul d be
di smi ssed because t her e ar e no asset s l ef t t o be admi ni st er ed i nasmuch
as t he est at e has been cl osed f or near l y 60 year s and, i n any event ,
t he At t or ney Gener al i s t he per son char ged wi t h enf or ci ng a char i t abl e
di sposi t i on ( see EPTL 8- 1. 1) . The Sur r ogat e di d not expr essl y r ul e on
t hat par t of t he mot i on seeki ng i nt er vent i on, but deni ed t he mot i on t o
di smi ss and gr ant ed pet i t i oner l et t er s of admi ni st r at i on c. t . a. ,
l i mi t ed t o t he enf or cement of t he t er ms of t he char i t abl e gi f t under
Ar t i cl e Four t h of t he Last Wi l l and Test ament of Wi l l i amH. Sewar d
[ I I I ] , pur suant t o SCPA 702 ( 1) . Pet i t i oner concedes t hat t he i ssue
whet her he has st andi ng i n any pr oceedi ng or act i on i nvol vi ng t he
di sposi t i on of t he pai nt i ng, i n ei t her Sur r ogat e s Cour t or Supr eme
Cour t , was not addr essed by t he Sur r ogat e, and t he At t or ney Gener al
has expr essl y r eser ved hi s r i ght t o cont est t he i ssue of st andi ng.
Al t hough t he Sur r ogat e pr oper l y det er mi ned t hat pet i t i oner was
el i gi bl e f or appoi nt ment as admi ni st r at or c. t . a. pur suant t o SCPA 1418
( 3) , because t hose per sons aut hor i zed by SCPA 1418 ( 1) and ( 2) f or
appoi nt ment ei t her ar e deceased or have decl i ned t o seek l et t er s, we
never t hel ess concl ude t hat he er r ed i n gr ant i ng l et t er s of
admi ni st r at i on c. t . a. t o pet i t i oner . I t i s undi sput ed t hat t her e ar e
no asset s of t he est at e t hat have not been admi ni st er ed ( see Matter of
Moran, 145 NYS2d 241, 243, affd 1 AD2d 1003; see also Van Giessen v
Bridgford, 83 NY 348, 355) . As t he Cour t of Appeal s has wr i t t en,
[ t ] her e may be cases wher e l et t er s of admi ni st r at i on ar e necessar y t o
be gr ant ed f or ot her pur poses t han t he r ecover y and di st r i but i on of
asset s[ , ] i ncl udi ng a cl ai mi n r espect t o t hemwhi ch can be
enf or ced ( Van Giessen, 83 NY at 355) . Never t hel ess, we concl ude t hat
any cl ai mwi t h r espect t o t he pai nt i ng i s t o be enf or ced by t he
[ At t or ney Gener al ] , pur suant t o hi s dut y t o ef f ect uat e t he donor s
wi shes ( Lefkowitz v Lebensfeld, 68 AD2d 488, 496, affd 51 NY2d 442;
see St. Joseph s Hosp. v Bennett, 281 NY 115, 119; see generally
Matter of Alaimo, 288 AD2d 916, 916, lv denied 97 NY2d 609) , and we
concl ude t hat l et t er s of admi ni st r at i on c. t . a. ar e not necessar y
( Van Giessen, 83 NY at 355) .
We f ur t her concl ude t hat l i mi t ed l et t er s of admi ni st r at i on al so
ar e not appr opr i at e or necessar y i n r espect of t he af f ai r s of t he
est at e ( SCPA 702 [ 10] ; cf. Smithers v St. Lukes-Roosevelt Hosp., 281
AD2d 127, 134- 135) . Not abl y, t he Sur r ogat e deni ed pet i t i oner s
r equest t hat t he l et t er s gr ant pet i t i oner t he aut hor i t y t o commence an
act i on ( cf. Smithers, 281 AD2d at 134- 135) . Mor eover , t he Sur r ogat e
has pr evi ousl y pr ohi bi t ed t he di sposi t i on of t he pai nt i ng wi t hout
cour t appr oval , and t her e i s no basi s t o concl ude t hat t he At t or ney
Gener al i s not pr oper l y f ul f i l l i ng hi s dut y t o pr ot ect t he decedent s
-3- 506
CA 13-01858
wi shes wi t h r espect t o t he bequest t o t he Emer son Foundat i on ( cf. id.
at 134; see generally Lucker v Bayside Cemetery, 114 AD3d 162, 169) .
We t her ef or e r ever se t he decr ee and gr ant t he mot i on t o di smi ss t he
pet i t i on, wi t hout pr ej udi ce t o f i l e a pet i t i on seeki ng appr opr i at e
l et t er s i n t he event t hat ci r cumst ances change and i t becomes
appr opr i at e or necessar y f or decedent s est at e t o seek t o
par t i ci pat e i n a pr oceedi ng or act i on r egar di ng t he di sposi t i on of t he
pai nt i ng ( SCPA 702 [ 10] ; see Smithers, 281 AD2d at 134- 135; see
generally Van Giessen, 83 NY at 355) .
Ent er ed: J une 13, 2014 Fr ances E. Caf ar el l
Cl er k of t he Cour t