In re Winger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Winger

251 A.D.2d 56, 672 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6432

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

DecidedJune 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 56 (In re Winger) 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 Winger, 251 A.D.2d 56, 672 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered May 17, 1996 and October 21, 1996, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner’s claims against respondent conservator for breach of fiduciary duty [57]*57and breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

The IAS Court properly determined that petitioner has not demonstrated the existence of any triable questions of fact with respect to the alleged breach by the conservator either of her fiduciary duty or of the parties’ stipulation of settlement. Contrary to petitioner’s contention that further disclosure is warranted, the record clearly reveals that the conservator did not act improperly in failing to rent the conservatee’s cooperative apartment, and that she also did not pay excessive salaries to the conservatee’s hired companions. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered May 17, 1996 and October 21, 1996, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner’s claims against respondent conservator for breach of fiduciary duty [57]*57and breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

The IAS Court properly determined that petitioner has not demonstrated the existence of any triable questions of fact with respect to the alleged breach by the conservator either of her fiduciary duty or of the parties’ stipulation of settlement. Contrary to petitioner’s contention that further disclosure is warranted, the record clearly reveals that the conservator did not act improperly in failing to rent the conservatee’s cooperative apartment, and that she also did not pay excessive salaries to the conservatee’s hired companions. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 56, 672 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-winger-nyappdiv-1998.