Vinokur v. Balzaretti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vinokur v. Balzaretti

62 A.D.2d 990, 403 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11027

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

DecidedApril 3, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 62 A.D.2d 990 (Vinokur v. Balzaretti) 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

Vinokur v. Balzaretti, 62 A.D.2d 990, 403 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11027 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract to convey real property, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 15, 1977, which denied the motion of a "friend” of defendant (see CPLR 1202, subd [a], par 2) to vacate a stipulation of settlement and conduct a hearing to determine whether the defendant requires a guardian ad litem to protect her interests in the action, and, if so, whether he should be so appointed. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In our opinion, it was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to have denied, without a hearing, the motion to determine defendant’s fitness to adequately defend her rights in the light of the strong allegations of senility presented in the moving affidavits. The fact that she was adequately represented by counsel in the proceedings is of no consequence (see Anderson v Anderson, 164 App Div 812). The public policy of this State, and of this court, is one of rigorous protection of the rights of the mentally infirm (see CPLR 321, 1201). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Titone and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance of a contract to convey real property, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 15, 1977, which denied the motion of a "friend” of defendant (see CPLR 1202, subd [a], par 2) to vacate a stipulation of settlement and conduct a hearing to determine whether the defendant requires a guardian ad litem to protect her interests in the action, and, if so, whether he should be so appointed. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In our opinion, it was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to have denied, without a hearing, the motion to determine defendant’s fitness to adequately defend her rights in the light of the strong allegations of senility presented in the moving affidavits. The fact that she was adequately represented by counsel in the proceedings is of no consequence (see Anderson v Anderson, 164 App Div 812). The public policy of this State, and of this court, is one of rigorous protection of the rights of the mentally infirm (see CPLR 321, 1201). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Titone and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.2d 990, 403 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinokur-v-balzaretti-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack