In re Burack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Burack

80 A.D.2d 640, 437 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10342

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.2d 640 (In re Burack) 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 Burack, 80 A.D.2d 640, 437 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a special proceeding pursuant to article 77 of the Mental Hygiene Law for the appointment of a conservator of the property of Fannie Burack, the conservatee and two of her distributees appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreihe Court, Westchester County, dated May 2, 1980, as, after a hearing, appointed Nicholas Colabella as conservator. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Considering the factual circumstances as they were disclosed by the testimony of the parties, Special Term properly exercised its discretion in appointing a disinterested party as conservator (cf. Matter of Lyon, 52 AD2d 847, affd 41 NY2d 1056 on mem of App Div). Mollen, P.J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a special proceeding pursuant to article 77 of the Mental Hygiene Law for the appointment of a conservator of the property of Fannie Burack, the conservatee and two of her distributees appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreihe Court, Westchester County, dated May 2, 1980, as, after a hearing, appointed Nicholas Colabella as conservator. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Considering the factual circumstances as they were disclosed by the testimony of the parties, Special Term properly exercised its discretion in appointing a disinterested party as conservator (cf. Matter of Lyon, 52 AD2d 847, affd 41 NY2d 1056 on mem of App Div). Mollen, P.J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 640, 437 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-burack-nyappdiv-1981.