Plaintiff, Max Levai, is suing defendants, Hanno Mott (in his capacity as trustee of the ML Trust) and Marcia Levine, a trust beneficiary, to prevent Mott from disbursing trust funds to Levine.

According to the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff's father, Pierre Levai, created the ML Trust, an irrevocable lifetime trust, with trust property of $3 million, naming Levine as the initial beneficiary upon his death. (NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶ 22-24.) Levine and Pierre Levai were in an intimate relationship for 40 years. (NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶ 26.) Plaintiff was named as the second beneficiary. (NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶ 24.)

In November 2023, Pierre Levai's health began to deteriorate. (NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶ 28.) On Levine's suggestion, he travelled with her to Miami for a vacation. (NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶ 29.) Plaintiff alleges that while in Miami, Levine isolated Pierre Levai from his family (specifically his wife, Rosemary Levai, and plaintiff), controlled his communications, and denied him food and medical care, inducing a condition of incompetency of which she took advantage. (NYSCEF No. 1 at 11-15.) Plaintiff alleges that while Pierre Levai's health was declining, Levine created [*2]various legal documents to funnel his assets to her. (NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶ 59-61.) Pierre Levai was admitted to a Miami hospital in critical condition in April 2024, and died in the hospital in June 2024. (NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶ 62-65).

Plaintiff brought this action against defendants to prevent Mott under the slayer rule from distributing any of the ML Trust funds to Levine, alleging that her conduct recklessly caused Pierre Levai's death.

Levine now moves to transfer this action to Surrogate's Court, New York County, where Rosemary Levai's probate petition of Pierre Levai's will is pending. In the alternative, Levine moves to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (a) (7). The motion to transfer is granted; and the motion to dismiss is therefore denied without prejudice.

Surrogate's Court "has jurisdiction over the estate of any lifetime trust which has assets in the state." (Surrogate's Court Procedure Act [SCPA] § 207 [1].) Surrogate's Court also has power "to determine any and all matters relating to lifetime trusts." (Id. § 209 [6].) A lifetime trust, for SCPA purposes, is "an express trust . . . created during the grantor's lifetime." (Id. § 103 [31].)

It is undisputed that because Pierre Levai executed the ML Trust during his lifetime, Surrogate's Court and this court have concurrent jurisdiction over the claims in this action. (See McCoy v Bankers Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 131 AD2d 646, 648 [2d Dept 1987].) The question presented by this motion is whether this court should exercise its discretion under article 6, § 19 (a), of the New York Constitution to transfer this action to Surrogate's Court. This court may do so if it determines that the action affects the administration of Pierre Levai's estate (CPLR 325 [e]), or if transfer would further judicial economy (Birnbaum v Central Trust Co., 156 AD2d 309, 310 [1st Dept 1989]).

Probate of Pierre Levai's estate is currently pending in Surrogate's Court. Plaintiff argues that this action, on the other hand, concerns the ML Trust, which is distinct and separate from Pierre Levai's estate, and that this action will not affect the administration of the estate. (NYSCEF No. 25 at 6-8, 10-11). This argument is unpersuasive. Plaintiff's claims in this action encompass probate property. In particular, plaintiff has asked this court to declare that Levine "has no right to any benefits, assets, or funds . . . of the ML Trust nor any gift, nor any other amendment to any other trust created by Pierre." (NYSCEF No. 1 at 20 [emphases added].) This requested declaration could affect probate property in Pierre Levai's estate—i.e., gifts devised to Levine by will or testamentary trusts benefiting Levine. This potential effect on the estate is a sufficient reason under CPLR 325 (e) to warrant to transfer of this action to Surrogate's Court.

Levine also argues that because plaintiff has already made the same slayer-rule-related allegations against her in Surrogate's Court (based on much of the same evidence), judicial economy warrants transfer to that court. (NYSCEF No. 21 at 6-7.) This court agrees. The interests of judicial economy "dictate a strong preference for removal to Surrogate's Court of all matters affecting the administration of a decedent's estate." (Lawrence v Graubard Miller, 48 [*3]AD3d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2007].) This preference is heightened when, as here, the Surrogate also has familiarity with the parties, facts, and circumstances of the litigation. (See Birnbaum, 156 AD2d at 310.)

Plaintiff, relying on an unpublished decision of Supreme Court, Westchester County, argues that judicial-economy interests do not necessarily require transfer. (See NYSCEF No. 25 at 7, citing Falk v Bergen, Index No. 60773/2017, NYSCEF No. 83, 2018 NY Misc. LEXIS 41547, at *6 [Sup Ct, Westchester County Jan. 18, 2018].) But in Falk, the motion court relied on the fact that the action did not involve a decedent's estate, but only trusts. (See Falk, 2018 NY Misc LEXIS 41547, at *6.) As discussed above, plaintiff's claims in this action potentially encompass both a lifetime trust and Pierre Levai's estate. The Falk court also did not address (and may not have had occasion to address) whether the transfer analysis should be affected by the pendency of a parallel proceeding before Surrogate's Court. Plaintiff has not shown that this court should retain jurisdiction over this action notwithstanding the overlap with the Surrogate's Court probate proceeding in parties, claims, and evidence.

Levine's motion to transfer is granted. Given the grant of the request to transfer, Levine's alternative request to dismiss plaintiff's claims under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (a) (7) is denied, without prejudice to the request's renewal in Surrogate's Court following transfer.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Levine's motion to transfer this action to Surrogate's Court is granted, and this action shall be removed to Surrogate's Court, New York County, pursuant to CPLR 325 (e); and it is further

ORDERED that Levine shall serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on all parties; and on the office of the County Clerk (using the NYSCEF document type "Notice to the County Clerk - CPLR § 8019 (c)"), which shall transfer this action and all documents filed in the action to Surrogate's Court, New York County; and it is further

ORDERED that Levine shall contact the office of the County Clerk to arrange for effectuation of the transfer in an efficient manner.