In re the Final Accounting of Boland
Opinion of the Court
The committee of the incompetent herein has presented this ex parte petition to the court for leave to render his final account and to be relieved as such committee. The g*round of his prayer is that the assets of the estate are now substantially depleted, and that, because of the small principal and small income, a committee is unnecessary and, consequently, the expense thereof should be saved (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1381, subd. 9).
I recognize that it may well be frustrating for a member of the Bar — who has been appointed by the court as the committee
Some time ago, the Court of Appeals made the situation crystal clear, with an emphasis which it placed in its opinion: “By statute, the custody of the person and the control and management of the property and affairs of an incompetent person and the use and disposition of his property are exclusively vested in the Supreme Court whose jurisdiction must be exercised by means of a committee appointed according to procedure provided in the Civil Practice Act (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 1356-1358). There may be no interference with or disposition of his property until such jurisdiction is exercised and a committee appointed whose proceedings are subject continuously to proper and orderly supervision of the court (Matter of Schneider, 234 App. Div. 722; Matter of Rinn, 242 App. Div. 523; Finch v. Goldstein, 245 N. Y. 300; Matter of Frank, 283 N. Y. 106). The order of Special' Term authorizing a committee to designate the Superintendent of Buffalo State Hospital to receive the property of the incompetent and for the discharge of the committee and his bond from liability upon making such designation was without authority of law.” (Matter of McGuinness, 290 N. Y. 117, 118-119, affg. 264 App. Div. 944, 945.) In the circumstances, it is not for me to do aught but deny the request — and this I do.
The result may be that the services that the present committee must continue to render in this estate cannot be adequately compensated for — if paid for at all — but that is a sympathetic element that cannot be legally controlling. The committee is an attorney and as such he is doubly an officer of the court.
As I have said, this application of the petitioner is denied, but such denial is, of course, without prejudice to a motion, upon proper grounds and upon proper notice to the incompetent’s relatives and to appropriate public officials, by which the committee may seek to be relieved of his responsibility as such and ask for the appointment of a substitute committee-.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.