In re Sidney S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sidney S.

1 A.D.2d 440, 766 N.Y.S.2d 899

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 2003·Published

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental [441] Hygiene Law article 81, Karen W. (Anonymous) appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.), dated April 26, 2002, as, after a hearing, denied her motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated August 6, 1999, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that Ida S. was an incapacitated person, appointed the petitioner, Sidney S., as guardian to manage the property and personal affairs of Ida S., and declared that a power of attorney dated March 6, 1998, in favor of Karen W. was void.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs payable personally by Karen W to Sidney S.

The death of Ida S. during the pendency of the appeal renders the appeal academic (see Matter of Rose BB., 246 AD2d 820, 821 [1998]; Matter of Borack, 237 AD2d 149, 150 [1997]; see also Knoer v Pace, 125 AD2d 1006 [1986]). Smith, J.E, Krausman, McGinity and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental [441] Hygiene Law article 81, Karen W. (Anonymous) appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.), dated April 26, 2002, as, after a hearing, denied her motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated August 6, 1999, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that Ida S. was an incapacitated person, appointed the petitioner, Sidney S., as guardian to manage the property and personal affairs of Ida S., and declared that a power of attorney dated March 6, 1998, in favor of Karen W. was void.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs payable personally by Karen W to Sidney S.

The death of Ida S. during the pendency of the appeal renders the appeal academic (see Matter of Rose BB., 246 AD2d 820, 821 [1998]; Matter of Borack, 237 AD2d 149, 150 [1997]; see also Knoer v Pace, 125 AD2d 1006 [1986]). Smith, J.E, Krausman, McGinity and Rivera, JJ., concur.

In re Sidney S., 1 A.D.2d 440, 766 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

1 A.D.2d 440 (In re Sidney S.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related