In re Daggett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Daggett

262 A.D. 867, 28 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6315

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 1941·Published

Opinion

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings County, removing William B. Donnell as guardian of the person and property of George Daggett, an infant, and appointing in his stead Sarah Leahy Daggett, the infant’s grandmother. Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally. The record amply justifies the action of the surrogate for the reasons stated by him relating to the best interests of the infant. In addition, the undisputed proof establishes that the petition upon which the appellant was originally appointed contained false suggestions of material facts which required the revocation of the letters issued to the appellant. (Surr. Ct. Act, § 99, subd. 4; Matter of Campbell, 192 N. Y. 312.) This is so even if the erroneous statements were innocently made. (Matter of Gaffney, 141 Misc. 453, 455; Kerr v. Kerr, 41 N. Y. 272, 276.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

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

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings County, removing William B. Donnell as guardian of the person and property of George Daggett, an infant, and appointing in his stead Sarah Leahy Daggett, the infant’s grandmother. Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally. The record amply justifies the action of the surrogate for the reasons stated by him relating to the best interests of the infant. In addition, the undisputed proof establishes that the petition upon which the appellant was originally appointed contained false suggestions of material facts which required the revocation of the letters issued to the appellant. (Surr. Ct. Act, § 99, subd. 4; Matter of Campbell, 192 N. Y. 312.) This is so even if the erroneous statements were innocently made. (Matter of Gaffney, 141 Misc. 453, 455; Kerr v. Kerr, 41 N. Y. 272, 276.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

In re Daggett, 262 A.D. 867, 28 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

262 A.D. 867 (In re Daggett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related