In re Finkle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Finkle

42 A.D.2d 554, 346 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002

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

DecidedJune 28, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 554 (In re Finkle) 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 Finkle, 42 A.D.2d 554, 346 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 12, 1973, insofar as it appoints Kenneth M. Stark a coconservator of the property of Kate Einkle Wehle, the conservatee, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and said appointment vacated. It appears that all of the persons who are intimately concerned with the conservatee’s welfare heartily indorsed the appointment of Mr. Gold-ring, as conservator of her property, and all concerned, including the court, found him to be well qualified and capable to serve in that capacity. While there is no objection to the qualifications of the conconservator designated by Special Term, we find that, on this record, there is no present need shown for a coconservator. (Matter of Younker, 42 A D 2d 534.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 12, 1973, insofar as it appoints Kenneth M. Stark a coconservator of the property of Kate Einkle Wehle, the conservatee, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and said appointment vacated. It appears that all of the persons who are intimately concerned with the conservatee’s welfare heartily indorsed the appointment of Mr. Gold-ring, as conservator of her property, and all concerned, including the court, found him to be well qualified and capable to serve in that capacity. While there is no objection to the qualifications of the conconservator designated by Special Term, we find that, on this record, there is no present need shown for a coconservator. (Matter of Younker, 42 A D 2d 534.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 554, 346 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-finkle-nyappdiv-1973.