In re Scurlock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Scurlock

90 A.D.2d 552, 455 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18608

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.2d 552 (In re Scurlock) 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 Scurlock, 90 A.D.2d 552, 455 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Mental Hygiene Law, seeking an adjudication of competency and the appointment of a committee or conservator, the appeal, as limited by the appellants’ brief, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meade, J.), dated June 30, 1982, as appointed Thomas A. Lifland, Esq., committee of the person and property of the incompetent. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Appointment of a committee of the person and property of an incompetent rests in the sound discretion of the court (Matter of Rothman, 263 NY 31, 33). Considering all the testimony adduced at the hearing, it cannot be said that Special Term abused its discretion in appointing a person other than a family member as the committee despite the posttrial claim that the disputing family members had reconciled. Under the circumstances, the appointment served the best interests of the incompetent. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Mental Hygiene Law, seeking an adjudication of competency and the appointment of a committee or conservator, the appeal, as limited by the appellants’ brief, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meade, J.), dated June 30, 1982, as appointed Thomas A. Lifland, Esq., committee of the person and property of the incompetent. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Appointment of a committee of the person and property of an incompetent rests in the sound discretion of the court (Matter of Rothman, 263 NY 31, 33). Considering all the testimony adduced at the hearing, it cannot be said that Special Term abused its discretion in appointing a person other than a family member as the committee despite the posttrial claim that the disputing family members had reconciled. Under the circumstances, the appointment served the best interests of the incompetent. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 552, 455 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-scurlock-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack