Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908

In re Andrews

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 30, 1908 · Gaynor

129 A.D. 586; 114 N.Y.S. 251; 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1369

Counsel

John F. Devlin [George O. Kobbé and Grant Notman with him on the brief], for the appellants., William M. Seabury [Charles Stewart Butler with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Edwards v. Edwards (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1956)
In re the Discharge of the Committee of the Property of Belcher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1952)
In re the Application for the Appointment of a Committee of the Person & Property of Beechwood (New York County Courts 1931)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gaynor, J.:

This application should have been made in the county of Mew York, and the court should have refused to hear it in the county of Bockland. A proceeding to have a person declared a lunatic, and his property and person put in the charge of a committee, has to be had in the judicial district in which such person resides, as is prescribed by section 2323 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section *5872343 provides that when the lunatic becomes competent again, the court must discharge the committee of his person and property, and restore his property to him. It does not specifically say the application therefor must be in such place of his residence, but that follows plainly enough from reading the whole title on the subject (§§ 2320-2344); and the matter is settled by judicial decision. Also, the motion should be in the original proceeding, and not in a newly entitled proceeding, as here (Matter of Porter, 34 App. Div. 147; Matter of Osborn, 74 id. 113; Matter of Bischoff, 80 id. 326). The order should be reversed and the proceeding dismissed.

Woodward, Jerks, Hooker and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and proceeding dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.