Case Name: In the Matter of the Appointment of a Committee of the Person and Property of Norman W. Roe, an Alleged Incompetent Person. George R. Dare, Appellant-Respondent; Albert Felix, Respondent-Appellant; Carl S. Forsythe et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1969-02-20
Citations: 24 N.Y.2d 52
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Appointment of a Committee of the Person and Property of Norman W. Roe, an Alleged Incompetent Person. George R. Dare, Appellant-Respondent; Albert Felix, Respondent-Appellant; Carl S. Forsythe et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 52–60

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Appointment of a Committee of the Person and Property of Norman W. Roe, an Alleged Incompetent Person. George R. Dare, Appellant-Respondent; Albert Felix, Respondent-Appellant; Carl S. Forsythe et al., Respondents.
Argued November 26, 1968;
decided February 20, 1969.
Arthur E. McInerney and Frederick M. Schlater for appellant-respondent.
I. As a matter of law, Special Term should have declined to exercise jurisdiction. (Matter of Clarkson, 186 App. Div. 575,227 N. Y. 599; Matter of Beechwood, 142 Misc. 400; Matter of Winter, 44 Misc 2d 967; Matter of Bischoff, 80 App. Div. 326; Matter of McKitterick, 286 App. Div. 885; Matter of Crichton, 20 N Y 2d 124; Matter of Hernandez, 172 App. Div. 467, 219 N. Y. 566; Reichenback v. Corn Exch. Bank Trust Co., 249 App. Div. 539.) II. Each of the committee was disqualified as a matter of law by having adverse interests to the incompetent’s estate. (Matter of Browning, 248 App. Div. 97; Matter of Quinby, 175 App. Div. 898; Matter of Rice, 22 A D 2d 339; Kuphal v. Kuphal, 177 Misc. 255; Matter of Berman, 21 A D 2d 136.) III. The propounding of the alleged designation under section 101-a of the Mental Hygiene Law, which was not executed in compliance with the statute, is sufficient of itself to disqualify Carl S. Forsythe as committee. (Matter of Hawley, 6 A D 2d 594; Matter of Satterlee, 281 App. Div. 251; Matter of Putnam, 257 N. Y. 140; Cowee v. Cornell, 75 N. Y. 91.) IV. Special Term had no jurisdiction because the order was not timely served on respondent-appellant. V. The hearing was not a full and impartial trial wherein the next of kin were given the opportunity to investigate facts and present evidence. (Meaney v. Loew’s Hotels, 26 A D 2d 263.) VI. The allowances to all parties were excessive as a matter of law. (Matter of Mayer, 19 A D 2d 885; Matter of Berman, 21 A D 2d 136; Matter of Rice, 22 A D 2d 339.)
Mario Matthew Cuomo for Carl S. Forsythe and others, respondents.
I. None of the questions sought to be raised by appellant are properly reviewable in this court. (Reichenback v. Corn Exch. Bank Trust Co., 249 App. Div. 539; Goldfeder v. Greenberg, 189 App. Div. 184; Matter of Peekamose Fishing Club, 151 N. Y. 511; Smith v. Brown Bros. Co., 196 N. Y. 529; Matter of McCarthy, 304 N. Y. 601; Matter of Kalthoff, 298 N. Y. 458; Matter of Wade, 296 N. Y. 244; Matter of Putnam, 257 N. Y. 140; Matter of Watson, 131 N. Y. 587; Hewlett v. Elmer, 103 N. Y. 156.). II. Even assuming the question is reviewable here, no reversible error was created by the refusal of the court to change the venue from New York to Suffolk County in the midst of the proceeding and after appellant had joined in the finding of incompetency. Appellant waived the right to demand the change. (Matter of McKitterick, 286 App. Div. 885; Matter of Porter, 34 App. Div. 147; Matter of Glasser, 180 Misc. 311; Crawford Bros. v. Holdridge 208 Misc. 447;
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Republic Lodge No. 1987,10 Misc 2d 783; Reichenback v. Corn Exch. Bank Trust Co., 249 App. Div. 539.) III. There was a reasonable basis for the choice of New York County. (Matter of Clarkson, 186 App. Div. 578, 227 N. Y. 599; Matter of Bischoff, 80 App. Div. 326; Matter of Winter, 44 Misc 2d 967; Matter of Beechwood, 142 Misc. 400; Hammerman v. Louis Watch Co., 7 A D 2d 817; Black v. Black, 26 Misc 2d 579, 13 A D 2d 723.) IV. The selection of petitioner and Mrs. G-otfredsen to serve on the committee was a sound and proper one which conformed completely with the incompetent’s best interests as well as his own previous choice. The fees, awarded to the attorneys for petitioner were not excessive. (Matter of McCarthy, 279 App. Div. 716, 304 N. Y. 601.) V. The untimely service of the order to show cause did not deprive the court of jurisdiction on the motion to confirm, nor was appellant deprived of a fair hearing. (Todd v. Gull Contr. Co., 22 A D 2d 904; Miot v. JoCarl Realty Corp., 20 A D 2d 664; Berford v. Wetmore. 119 N. Y. 638.)
Philip O. Eisenberg, respondent in person.
I. The appointment of the committee was a proper exercise of judicial discretion by the court. (Matter of Rothman, 263 N. Y. 31; Matter of West, 13 A D 2d 599; Matter of Rice, 22 A D 2d 339; Matter of Kalthoff, 298 N. Y. 458.). II. The allowances fixed by Special Term were most reasonable under the circumstances.
John J. Mooney, in person, and as guardian ad litem for William B. Owen III, respondent.
I. The appointment of a committee by Special Term, affirmed by the Appellate Division, is not a litigable issue in this court. (Matter of McCarthy, 304 N. Y. 601; Matter of Kalthoff, 298 N. Y. 458; Matter of McCarthy, 279 App. Div. 716.) II. The court below in affirming Special Term’s retention of venue acted within its sound discretion. (Jensen v. Union Ry. Co., 260 N. Y. 1; Matter of McKitterick, 286 App. Div. 885.) III. Allowances fixed by Special Term and affirmed by the Appellate Division may not properly be reviewed by this court. (Caristo Gonstr. Corp. v. Diners Fin. Corp., 21 N Y 2d 507; Matter of McCarthy, 304 N. Y. 601; Matter of Kalthoff, 298 N. Y. 458.)
Albert Felix, as commissioner, pro se, and Allen S. Stim for Albert Felix, respondent-appellant.
The award by Special Term of a fee of $2,500 to the commissioner for .services rendered was fair and reasonable and such award should not have been modified by the Appellate Division. (Matter of Berman, 24 AD 2d 432.)
No appearance for Edward Klane, Oscar Pelzman and Sidney Stark, respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The proceeding should be transferred to the appropriate Special Term in the Tenth Judicial District, for the determination of the question of incompetency raised in the petition. The alleged incompetent is indisputably a resident of Suffolk and not a resident of New York County. The statute (Mental Hygiene Law, § 101, subd. [2]) requires the proceeding to declare incompetency be maintained in the judicial district of the residence of the incompetent. The papers submitted for the order to show cause which instituted the proceeding were sufficiently contradictory on their face on residence of the incompetent to require further inquiry.- Instruments referred to in the moving papers and made part of the record showed repeated references by the incompetent to his residence in Suffolk County.
In such circumstances the statute requires a Supreme Court proceeding be maintained in the Tenth Judicial District (Matter of McKitterick, 286 App. Div. 885, app. dsmd. 309 N. Y. 803; Matter of Schley, 253 App. Div. 818; Matter of Porter, 34 App. Div. 147).
The court at Special Term in the Tenth District has discretion to make such allowances as maybe proper for services performed in good faith under the authority of prior orders. (Cf. Matter of Tracy, 1 Paige Ch. 580; Matter of M'Clean, 6 Johns. Ch. 440; Carter v. Beckwith, 128 N. Y. 312.)
The present committee should continue for a reasonable time, but not later than March 17, 1969 — under the supervision of the Supreme Court, Tenth Judicial District — in the execution of its duties as such committee until a determination of the question of incompetency is made, and the appointment of a new committee or the continuation of the present committee is effected, by the court having jurisdiction as determined herein.
The order should be reversed and .the proceeding remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.