In re the Guardianship of Beasley

234 A.D.2d 32, 650 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12233
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 3, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 32 (In re the Guardianship of Beasley) 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 Guardianship of Beasley, 234 A.D.2d 32, 650 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about November 21, 1995, which denied appellant Mental Hygiene Legal Service’s motion to dismiss this guardianship proceeding for lack of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, to change venue from New York County to Otsego County based upon the convenience of witnesses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the proposed ward has been institutionalized in a facility located in Otsego County for more than 20 years, Surrogate’s Court, New York County, properly rejected the challenge to its jurisdiction on the ground that there was no show[33]*33ing that the proposed ward ever had the capacity to express an intention to change her domicile from New York County where she was born and petitioners, her parents, have continuously resided (see, Matter of Urdang, 194 AD2d 615, 616, citing, inter alia, Matter of Webber, 187 Misc 674). The court also properly refused to transfer venue to Otsego County upon the grounds that petitioners reside in New York County, the court had already expended a great deal of time and effort on the matter, the Law Guardian, who is serving pro bono, works in New York County and has not been impeded in her tasks by the location of the facility in which her ward is institutionalized, the court can accept responses to written interrogatories from witnesses who are unable to appear in New York County, and appellant otherwise failed to demonstrate that the convenience of material witnesses or the ends of justice would be served by the transfer. We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Nicholas C.
2025 NY Slip Op 25234 (Suffolk Surrogate's Court, 2025)
Matter of Bonora
123 A.D.3d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re the Appointment of a Guardian for Olear
187 Misc. 2d 706 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
234 A.D.2d 32, 650 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-guardianship-of-beasley-nyappdiv-1996.