In re Sherwood

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second DepartmentApr 26, 2011
83 A.D.3d 1079 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
83 A.D.3d 1079921 N.Y.S.2d 5312011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3616

Cases citing this case

How cited

lock 1 Citing casekeyboard_arrow_right

No. 2010-03719.

April 26, 2011.

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, in which the Family Service Society of Yonkers petitioned to settle the final inventory and account of George E., Diane Sherwood appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, West-chester County (DiBella, J.), dated March 10, 2010, which, without a hearing, denied her objections to the final inventory and account.

Peter Wessel, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Richard L. Brodsky of counsel), for objectant-appellant Diane Sherwood, as Guardian of the person and property of Anthony P. (Anonymous), a minor over the age of 14 years, and S. Timothy Ball, New York, N.Y., for objectant-appellant Diane Sherwood, as administrator of the Estate of George P. (one brief filed).

Loren I. Glassman, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent Family Service Society of Yonkers.

Before: Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Roman, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the respondent Family Service Society of Yonkers by the objectant personally.

In an accounting proceeding, the objectant has the initial burden of coming forward with evidence to establish that the amounts set forth are inaccurate or incomplete ( see Matter of Campione, 58 AD3d 1032, 1034; Matter of Robinson, 282 AD2d 607). If the objections raise disputed issues of fact as to the necessity of disbursements, reasonableness of fees, or management of assets, a hearing should be held ( see Matter of Harry Y., 62 AD3d 892, 894-895; Matter of Louis G., 39 AD3d 546, 547; Matter of McCormick, 220 AD2d 506, 508). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's objections without a hearing, as she failed to raise any disputed issues of fact.

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.