In re Burnham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Burnham

264 A.D. 369, 35 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4150

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 1942·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is no evidence whatever of duress. Assuming overreaching or fraud in the procurement of the original retainer, the evidence establishes petitioner’s repeated ratification over a period of years, when the terms of the retainer were fully understood by her, and also inexcusable laches in instituting this proceeding.

The decree appealed from should be reversed, without costs, and the petition dismissed.

Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., and Townley, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Decree reversed, without costs, and the petition dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

There is no evidence whatever of duress. Assuming overreaching or fraud in the procurement of the original retainer, the evidence establishes petitioner’s repeated ratification over a period of years, when the terms of the retainer were fully understood by her, and also inexcusable laches in instituting this proceeding.

The decree appealed from should be reversed, without costs, and the petition dismissed.

Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., and Townley, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Decree reversed, without costs, and the petition dismissed.

In re Burnham, 264 A.D. 369, 35 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

264 A.D. 369 (In re Burnham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.