People ex rel. McLain v. Seiferth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. McLain v. Seiferth

10 A.D.2d 889, 201 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10408

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

DecidedApril 27, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 889 (People ex rel. McLain v. Seiferth) 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

People ex rel. McLain v. Seiferth, 10 A.D.2d 889, 201 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Relator,-as a friend of Mrs. Henrietta Proctor Donnell and purporting to act on her behalf, instituted this habeas corpus proceeding in Supreme Court, Westchester County, alleging in his petition that she was being restrained in her liberty by respondents Seiferth and Zah. On the return day, in view of the conflicting claims made, the court appointed a special guardian for Mrs. Donnell in order to protect her and to take her testimony. After taking her testimony (a copy of which was submitted to the court) the guardian reported that Mrs. Donnell was not being held under any restraint. On the basis of such testimony, report and the other papers in the record, the court on October 2, 1959- made a final order (entered October 6, 1959) which, in its first decretal paragraph, directed that the writ be dismissed, and which, in its second decretal paragraph, awarded $2-50 to the guardian and directed that such sum be paid forthwith by Mrs. Donnell. The relator appeals from so much of the order as dismissed the writ. Mrs. Donnell appeals from so much of the order as directs her to pay the guardian’s fee of $250. Order modified on the law and the facts, without costs, by striking from its second decretal paragraph the provision directing appellant, Henrietta Proctor Donnell, to pay forthwith the sum of $250 awarded to the special guardian. As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. The record shows that Mrs. Donnell was neither incompetent nor an infant. In the absence of such a showing there is no authority in law for the appointment of a special guardian for Mrs. Donnell and for the direction that she pay the guardian’s fee. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

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

Relator,-as a friend of Mrs. Henrietta Proctor Donnell and purporting to act on her behalf, instituted this habeas corpus proceeding in Supreme Court, Westchester County, alleging in his petition that she was being restrained in her liberty by respondents Seiferth and Zah. On the return day, in view of the conflicting claims made, the court appointed a special guardian for Mrs. Donnell in order to protect her and to take her testimony. After taking her testimony (a copy of which was submitted to the court) the guardian reported that Mrs. Donnell was not being held under any restraint. On the basis of such testimony, report and the other papers in the record, the court on October 2, 1959- made a final order (entered October 6, 1959) which, in its first decretal paragraph, directed that the writ be dismissed, and which, in its second decretal paragraph, awarded $2-50 to the guardian and directed that such sum be paid forthwith by Mrs. Donnell. The relator appeals from so much of the order as dismissed the writ. Mrs. Donnell appeals from so much of the order as directs her to pay the guardian’s fee of $250. Order modified on the law and the facts, without costs, by striking from its second decretal paragraph the provision directing appellant, Henrietta Proctor Donnell, to pay forthwith the sum of $250 awarded to the special guardian. As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. The record shows that Mrs. Donnell was neither incompetent nor an infant. In the absence of such a showing there is no authority in law for the appointment of a special guardian for Mrs. Donnell and for the direction that she pay the guardian’s fee. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 889, 201 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-mclain-v-seiferth-nyappdiv-1960.