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

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

DecidedJune 16, 1941

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 867, 28 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daggett-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack