General
In the Matter of the Petition of Sarah Leahy Daggett, for a Decree Revoking the Letters of Guardianship of George Daggett, an Infant under 14 Years, Heretofore Issued to William B. Donnell, and for a Decree Vacating the Decree of This Court Dated July 25, 1940, Appointing William B. Donnell as General Guardian of the Person and Property of George Daggett, and for the Appointment of Sarah Leahy Daggett as General Guardian of the Person and Property of the Said Infant. William B. Donnell, Former General Guardian of the Person and Property of George Daggett, an Infant, etc., Appellant; Sarah Leahy Daggett, General Guardian of the Person and Property of George Daggett, an Infant, etc., Respondent
262 A.D. 867·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1941·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Petition of Sarah Leahy Daggett, for a Decree Revoking the Letters of Guardianship of George Daggett, an Infant under 14 Years, Heretofore Issued to William B. Donnell, and for a Decree Vacating the Decree of This Court Dated July 25, 1940, Appointing William B. Donnell as General Guardian of the Person and Property of George Daggett, and for the Appointment of Sarah Leahy Daggett as General Guardian of the Person and Property of the Said Infant. William B. Donnell, Former General Guardian of the Person and Property of George Daggett, an Infant, etc., Appellant; Sarah Leahy Daggett, General Guardian of the Person and Property of George Daggett, an Infant, etc., Respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings County, removing William B. Donnell as guardian of the person and property of George Daggett, an infant, and appointing in his stead Sarah Leahy Daggett, the infant’s grandmother. Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally. The record amply justifies the action of the surrogate for the reasons stated by him relating to the best interests of the infant. In addition, the undisputed proof establishes that the petition upon which the appellant was originally appointed contained false suggestions of material facts which required the revocation of the letters issued to the appellant. (Surr. Ct. Act, § 99, subd. 4; Matter of Campbell, 192 N. Y. 312.) This is so even if the erroneous statements were innocently made. (Matter of Gaffney, 141 Misc. 453, 455; Kerr v. Kerr, 41 N. Y. 272, 276.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.