In re Aho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Aho

52 A.D.2d 923, 384 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12771

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 17, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 923 (In re Aho) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Aho, 52 A.D.2d 923, 384 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for the appointment of a committee of the person and property of an alleged incompetent, remitted to this court by the Court of Appeals, the appeal is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 18, 1973, after a jury trial, as (1) appointed committees of the person and property of the incompetent and (2) contained certain implementing provisions. The appeal from the judgment brings up for review an order of the same court, entered August 3, 1973, which denied a motion for a change of venue (see Matter of Aho, 46 AD2d 673, mod 39 NY2d 241). Judgment and order affirmed insofar as appealed from and reviewed, without costs or disbursements. The proof adduced amply supports the finding that the incompetent lacked the requisite capacity in 1972 to formulate an intention to change her domicile (see Matter of Thomas, 26 AD2d 514). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding for the appointment of a committee of the person and property of an alleged incompetent, remitted to this court by the Court of Appeals, the appeal is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 18, 1973, after a jury trial, as (1) appointed committees of the person and property of the incompetent and (2) contained certain implementing provisions. The appeal from the judgment brings up for review an order of the same court, entered August 3, 1973, which denied a motion for a change of venue (see Matter of Aho, 46 AD2d 673, mod 39 NY2d 241). Judgment and order affirmed insofar as appealed from and reviewed, without costs or disbursements. The proof adduced amply supports the finding that the incompetent lacked the requisite capacity in 1972 to formulate an intention to change her domicile (see Matter of Thomas, 26 AD2d 514). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 923, 384 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-aho-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack