In re the Appointment of a Committee of the Person & Property of Roe

New York Court of Appeals

In re the Appointment of a Committee of the Person & Property of Roe

246 N.E.2d 718, 24 N.Y.2d 52, 298 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1516

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 20, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 246 N.E.2d 718 (In re the Appointment of a Committee of the Person & Property of Roe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Appointment of a Committee of the Person & Property of Roe, 246 N.E.2d 718, 24 N.Y.2d 52, 298 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1516 (N.Y. 1969).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The proceeding should be transferred to the appropriate Special Term in the Tenth Judicial District, for the determination of the question of incompetency raised in the petition. The alleged incompetent is indisputably a resident of Suffolk and not a resident of New York County. The statute (Mental Hygiene Law, § 101, subd. [2]) requires the proceeding to declare incompetency be maintained in the judicial district of the residence of the incompetent. The papers submitted for the order to show cause which instituted the proceeding were sufficiently contradictory on their face on residence of the incompetent to require further inquiry.- Instruments referred to in the moving papers and made part of the record showed repeated references by the incompetent to his residence in Suffolk County.

In such circumstances the statute requires a Supreme Court proceeding be maintained in the Tenth Judicial District (Matter of McKitterick, 286 App. Div. 885, app. dsmd. 309 N. Y. 803; Matter of Schley, 253 App. Div. 818; Matter of Porter, 34 App. Div. 147).

The court at Special Term in the Tenth District has discretion to make such allowances as maybe proper for services performed in good faith under the authority of prior orders. (Cf. Matter of Tracy, 1 Paige Ch. 580; Matter of M’Clean, 6 Johns. Ch. 440; Carter v. Beckwith, 128 N. Y. 312.)

The present committee should continue for a reasonable time, but not later than March 17, 1969 — under the supervision of the Supreme Court, Tenth Judicial District — in the execution of its duties as such committee until a determination of the question of incompetency is made, and the appointment of a new committee or the continuation of the present committee is effected, by the court having jurisdiction as determined herein.

The order should be reversed and .the proceeding remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

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

Per Curiam.

The proceeding should be transferred to the appropriate Special Term in the Tenth Judicial District, for the determination of the question of incompetency raised in the petition. The alleged incompetent is indisputably a resident of Suffolk and not a resident of New York County. The statute (Mental Hygiene Law, § 101, subd. [2]) requires the proceeding to declare incompetency be maintained in the judicial district of the residence of the incompetent. The papers submitted for the order to show cause which instituted the proceeding were sufficiently contradictory on their face on residence of the incompetent to require further inquiry.- Instruments referred to in the moving papers and made part of the record showed repeated references by the incompetent to his residence in Suffolk County.

In such circumstances the statute requires a Supreme Court proceeding be maintained in the Tenth Judicial District (Matter of McKitterick, 286 App. Div. 885, app. dsmd. 309 N. Y. 803; Matter of Schley, 253 App. Div. 818; Matter of Porter, 34 App. Div. 147).

The court at Special Term in the Tenth District has discretion to make such allowances as maybe proper for services performed in good faith under the authority of prior orders. (Cf. Matter of Tracy, 1 Paige Ch. 580; Matter of M’Clean, 6 Johns. Ch. 440; Carter v. Beckwith, 128 N. Y. 312.)

The present committee should continue for a reasonable time, but not later than March 17, 1969 — under the supervision of the Supreme Court, Tenth Judicial District — in the execution of its duties as such committee until a determination of the question of incompetency is made, and the appointment of a new committee or the continuation of the present committee is effected, by the court having jurisdiction as determined herein.

The order should be reversed and .the proceeding remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 N.E.2d 718, 24 N.Y.2d 52, 298 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-appointment-of-a-committee-of-the-person-property-of-roe-ny-1969.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack