In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Dumbra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Dumbra

254 A.D. 776, 4 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7566

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

DecidedMay 27, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 776 (In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Dumbra) 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 Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Dumbra, 254 A.D. 776, 4 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Queens county denying motion to vacate an order in a final accounting appointing a special guardian for Helen Dumbra, an infant over the age of fourteen years, other than the one nominated by her, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, motion to vacate granted, without costs, and the application of the infant to appoint her [777]*777nominee special guardian granted. It having been made to appear affirmatively that the nominee has no interest adverse to that of the infant, is not connected in business with the attorney of any adverse party, and has not been suggested by any person having an adverse interest, and the nominee is qualified to act, the application of the infant should have been granted. (Surr. Ct. Act, § 64; Walter v. Bernheimer, 225 App. Div. 343; Matter of White, 40 id. 165, 167; affd., 160 N. T. 685.) No distinction may be made between the rule applicable to a special guardian and that applicable to a guardian ad litem. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Queens county denying motion to vacate an order in a final accounting appointing a special guardian for Helen Dumbra, an infant over the age of fourteen years, other than the one nominated by her, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, motion to vacate granted, without costs, and the application of the infant to appoint her [777]*777nominee special guardian granted. It having been made to appear affirmatively that the nominee has no interest adverse to that of the infant, is not connected in business with the attorney of any adverse party, and has not been suggested by any person having an adverse interest, and the nominee is qualified to act, the application of the infant should have been granted. (Surr. Ct. Act, § 64; Walter v. Bernheimer, 225 App. Div. 343; Matter of White, 40 id. 165, 167; affd., 160 N. T. 685.) No distinction may be made between the rule applicable to a special guardian and that applicable to a guardian ad litem. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 776, 4 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-judicial-settlement-of-the-account-of-proceedings-of-dumbra-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack