In re the Appointment of a Guardian of the Person & Property of Rowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Appointment of a Guardian of the Person & Property of Rowe

1 A.D.2d 884, 149 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5862

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 884 (In re the Appointment of a Guardian of the Person & Property of Rowe) 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 the Appointment of a Guardian of the Person & Property of Rowe, 1 A.D.2d 884, 149 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

This appeal is from orders of Special Term denying motions to dismiss the petition in this incom[885]*885petency proceeding on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction inasmuch as Mary Edna Rowe, the subject of this proceeding, was domiciled in Connecticut, rather than in New York. We believe that the question of domicile should be determined on testimony rather than on affidavits alone. That will afford full opportunity to adduce all the facts pertinent to that issue. It appears that Mary Edna Rowe was duly declared incompetent in the State of Connecticut and a conservator of her property was there appointed. Therefore, if it should be found, after a hearing, that her domicile is in Connecticut, there will be no need of having her again declared incompetent in New York solely for the purpose of receiving payments from her husband’s estate which is being administered here. Orders unanimously reversed and the motions granted to the extent of referring the matter to an Official Referee to hear and report on the question of domicile. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, J. P., Rabin, Cox and Frank, JJ.

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

This appeal is from orders of Special Term denying motions to dismiss the petition in this incom[885]*885petency proceeding on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction inasmuch as Mary Edna Rowe, the subject of this proceeding, was domiciled in Connecticut, rather than in New York. We believe that the question of domicile should be determined on testimony rather than on affidavits alone. That will afford full opportunity to adduce all the facts pertinent to that issue. It appears that Mary Edna Rowe was duly declared incompetent in the State of Connecticut and a conservator of her property was there appointed. Therefore, if it should be found, after a hearing, that her domicile is in Connecticut, there will be no need of having her again declared incompetent in New York solely for the purpose of receiving payments from her husband’s estate which is being administered here. Orders unanimously reversed and the motions granted to the extent of referring the matter to an Official Referee to hear and report on the question of domicile. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, J. P., Rabin, Cox and Frank, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 884, 149 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-appointment-of-a-guardian-of-the-person-property-of-rowe-nyappdiv-1956.