Gary Vincent Castaldo v. Diana Mondiello

9. Gary Vincent Castaldo v. Diana Mondiello

Citation: 2026 WL 290901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t, Feb. 4, 2026), Index No. 601885/22

Relevant Facts

• Dorothy Castaldo executed a limited power of appointment (LPA) dated April 16, 2019.

• Diana Mondiello served as both an individual party and trustee of the Dorothy Castaldo Irrevocable Trust.

• Gary Castaldo challenged the LPA, alleging it violated EPTL 7-1.9 and was the product of undue influence.

• The decedent had physical infirmities but was of sound mind.

• The decedent and petitioner became estranged in 2018 following his requests for information about her assets; a guardianship proceeding was commenced against her.

• The decedent expressed a consistent desire to disinherit the petitioner; Mondiello was not present when the LPA was executed.

Legal Issues

Whether the execution of the LPA complied with EPTL 7-1.9; whether the LPA was the product of undue influence; and whether summary judgment was appropriate.

Positions of the Parties

Castaldo: Argued the LPA violated EPTL 7-1.9 and was executed under undue influence by Mondiello.

Mondiello: The LPA was valid, permitted under the trust’s express terms, did not violate EPTL 7-1.9, and was not the product of undue influence.

Decision of the Court

REVERSED (the lower court’s denial of summary judgment) and summary judgment GRANTED dismissing the petition in favor of Mondiello.

Reasons for the Decision

• Mondiello demonstrated that the LPA reallocated the trust’s remainder among a specified class of beneficiaries in accordance with Article Six of the trust instrument.

• The decedent was not required to obtain the petitioner’s consent under EPTL 7-1.9(a), as the execution was permitted under the express terms of the trust instrument.

• Mondiello established prima facie that the LPA was not the product of undue influence: the decedent was of sound mind, Mondiello was not present at execution, the parties were estranged, and the decedent consistently expressed a desire to disinherit the petitioner.

• The petitioner failed to raise a triable issue of fact.