The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York recently ruled on the distribution of the estate of Aleksander Guralny, who died without a will in December 2018. The court's decision affects Guralny's alleged cousin, Anne Marie Pershyn, and his surviving relatives, Natalia Olegivna Gurlana and Igor Guralny. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the validity of a trust that was never funded and outlines how the estate should be distributed under New York law.
The case, known as Matter of Guralny (File No. 2019-1818|Appeal No. 7227|Case No. 2025-05013), began when Pershyn, named as a co-trustee of the Aleksander Guralny Revocable Trust, sought to settle her account and distribute Guralny's assets according to the trust's directives. However, Guralny's relatives objected, arguing that the estate should be distributed according to New York's intestacy laws, specifically EPTL § 4-1.1, which governs the distribution of assets when someone dies without a will.
The dispute escalated to the Surrogate's Court in Bronx County, where Judge Nelida Malave-Gonzalez denied Pershyn's motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of the objectants, declaring the trust null and void. The court found that no assets had ever been transferred to the trust during Guralny's lifetime, meaning there were no trust assets to distribute. This ruling was then appealed to the Appellate Division.
In its ruling on October 15, 2026, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The court stated, "A lifetime trust is only valid 'as to any assets therein to the extent the assets have been transferred to the trust'; 'transfer is not accomplished by recital of assignment, holding or receipt in the trust instrument.'" The judges involved in the ruling included Webber, J.P., Friedman, Kapnick, and Pitt-Burke.
The court further explained that since no assets were transferred to the trust, there were no instructions to follow for distribution after Guralny's death. The judges noted that even if the doctrine of gift by implication were applicable, it would not apply in this case because Guralny's intent to distribute his estate through the trust was not unmistakably clear. The court emphasized that the trust agreement explicitly indicated that Guralny intended to dispose of trust assets only, which were never funded.
This ruling has significant implications for the distribution of Guralny's estate. With the trust declared invalid, the court ordered that the estate be distributed according to New York intestacy laws, which generally favor relatives of the deceased. This decision also appointed the Bronx County Public Administrator as the administrator of Guralny's estate and directed a kinship hearing to determine the rightful heirs.
The ruling clarifies the importance of properly funding a trust during a person's lifetime to ensure that their wishes are honored after their death. It serves as a reminder for individuals to regularly review and manage their estate planning documents to avoid complications for their heirs.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Pershyn will appeal the decision further. The court's ruling effectively ends her attempts to distribute the estate according to the trust, but she may seek further legal recourse. There are no related cases pending at this time based on the information available in the court filing.