Oppedisano v. Zur
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-08469
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
Oppedisano v. Zur: Judge Roman remanded the trust-accounting case to Surrogate’s Court because federal jurisdiction was not established.
Vincenzo Oppedisano and Lynda Zur; the case will proceed in Orange County Surrogate’s Court rather than federal court.
What happened
In Oppedisano v. Zur, Vincenzo Oppedisano asked the federal court to send his case back to New York Surrogate’s Court. He seeks an accounting of a trust for which he says he is the beneficiary and Lynda Zur is the trustee.
Zur had moved the case from state court to federal court, arguing that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at issue. Oppedisano argued that the petition did not establish the required amount because he sought an accounting, not money damages.
Judge Roman granted Oppedisano’s motion and ordered the case remanded to Surrogate’s Court. The court found that Zur did not show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and it found the probate exception to federal jurisdiction inapplicable.
The detailed version
- Oppedisano v. Zur · No. 7:24-cv-08469
- Nelson Roman
- June 10, 2025
Background
Vincenzo Oppedisano filed a petition in Orange County Surrogate’s Court seeking a compulsory accounting under New York Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act § 2205. He alleges that he is the grantor and sole beneficiary of the Vincenzo Oppedisano Trust and that Lynda Zur is the trust’s sole trustee. He further alleges that Zur, acting as a fiduciary, failed to file an accounting.
Zur removed the proceeding to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Oppedisano then moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court. Oppedisano did not challenge the timeliness of removal or the existence of complete diversity between the parties. He challenged whether the petition established the required amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction and Analysis
Federal diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The party seeking to keep a removed case in federal court bears the burden of showing that these requirements are met.
The court determined that Oppedisano’s petition sought an accounting rather than monetary damages. An accounting is an equitable remedy that can require a fiduciary to provide financial records, explain receipts and expenditures, and return misappropriated funds if appropriate. Because the petition did not seek monetary compensation, the court found that no amount in controversy could be discerned from its face and that the allegations did not provide a good-faith representation that more than $75,000 was at issue.
Zur argued that the court should consider the amounts Oppedisano sought in two earlier related proceedings. The court acknowledged that those proceedings involved demands for damages exceeding $75,000 and referred to some of the same trust-related facts. But it found that the earlier proceedings concerned different claims, including alleged business-partnership disputes, and did not focus on the trust’s existence, assets, or a demand for an accounting. The court therefore concluded that those earlier damages claims were not relevant to the amount in controversy in this action.
The court also considered the probate exception, a limit on federal jurisdiction involving certain matters reserved for state probate courts. It found that the exception did not apply here. The court nonetheless concluded that Zur had failed to establish the required amount in controversy and therefore had not shown subject-matter jurisdiction.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Oppedisano’s motion to remand. The Clerk of Court was directed to remand the action, Case No. 2024-913, to the Orange County Surrogate’s Court and terminate the motion at ECF No. 7. Oppedisano was directed to serve the original state-court petition and a copy of the opinion and order on that court.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.