In re Kauffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kauffman

55 A.D.2d 526, 389 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15166

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 526 (In re Kauffman) 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 Kauffman, 55 A.D.2d 526, 389 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15166 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about August 25, 1976, insofar as it denied the petitioners’ request for the appointment of Etta Snitzer as coconservator and appointed H.O.N. Frankel, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, the appointment of Frankel vacated, and Etta Snitzer appointed coconservator with the petitioner Gladys Kauffman, the coconservators to serve without compensation. Absent a demonstrable conflict of interest or objection (cf. Matter of Gorman, 77 Misc 2d 564), it was "an improvident exercise of discretion not to accede to the wishes and concerns of those most closely affiliated with the incompetent” (Matter of Younker, 42 AD2d 534). Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Capozzoli, Lane, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about August 25, 1976, insofar as it denied the petitioners’ request for the appointment of Etta Snitzer as coconservator and appointed H.O.N. Frankel, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, the appointment of Frankel vacated, and Etta Snitzer appointed coconservator with the petitioner Gladys Kauffman, the coconservators to serve without compensation. Absent a demonstrable conflict of interest or objection (cf. Matter of Gorman, 77 Misc 2d 564), it was "an improvident exercise of discretion not to accede to the wishes and concerns of those most closely affiliated with the incompetent” (Matter of Younker, 42 AD2d 534). Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Capozzoli, Lane, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 526, 389 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kauffman-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack