Matter of Battey

6 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Evans

    6 A.D.2d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)   Cited 3 times

    The answer contained specific objections to certain disbursements made by the committee, including the sum of $780 claimed to have been paid for the board and care of the incompetent and a total amount of more than $10,000 set forth in the account as having been given to the incompetent for "spending money, food and clothing." As to these items and the amount of commissions taken by the committee or due him the burden of proof was upon the latter to prove the propriety of the charges for which he sought allowances. ( Matter of Battey, 260 App. Div. 362; see, also, 4 Butler, N.Y. Surrogate Law Practice, §§ 2833-2837.) It follows that upon the hearing the committee should have proceeded to furnish proof as to the validity of these items.

  2. Matter of Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co.

    274 A.D. 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)   Cited 3 times

    The circumstance that it may be impracticable to give effectual notice to all interested parties is hardly a reason for not giving such notice to any. This is recognized in the case of the statutory requirements applicable to the judicial settlement of the accounts of the committee of an incompetent, where notice is to be given in such manner as the court deems proper, and may be "to one or more relatives" of the incompetent (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1381, subd. 3; § 1360; cf. Matter of Battey, 260 App. Div. 362). That is more in accordance with the provision of the Uniform Common Trust Fund Act (9 U.L.A., p. 157), section 2 of which permits judicial settlement of accounts "on such conditions as the court may establish", leaving it to the court to provide for such notice in the particular case as shall satisfy the requirements of due process.

  3. Matter of Skutt

    8 Misc. 2d 999 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1957)

    He recovered from the operation and attended to his business until the very day he died. Under all these circumstances, I determine that the trust was not in fact executed in contemplation of death within the meaning of the Tax Law. ( Matter of Battey, 111 N.Y.S.2d 359, and cases therein cited.) The appeal is therefore denied and the determination affirmed.

  4. Matter of Schumacher

    8 Misc. 2d 349 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1957)   Cited 1 times

    Although there is some discussion in the briefs as to whether the transfer in any event was in contemplation of death, the parties have relegated this to a minor issue and have come to grips on the primary question as to whether the transfer was made at the time of the date of the execution of the deeds or at the time of their recording (cf. Matter of Battey, 111 N.Y.S.2d 359; Matter of Reierson, 167 Misc. 182). The fact of the execution of the deeds at the time they are dated is not directly disputed by the Tax Commission.

  5. Matter of Frankenheim

    207 Misc. 969 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1955)

    However, the court feels certain that the rights of the incompetent beneficiary will be protected adequately by the special guardian. If there are any serious objections to the account, the moving parties should communicate them to him. Matter of Battey (260 App. Div. 362), cited by the movants, is not in point. It does not appear in that case that the incompetent was deceased.

  6. Matter of Frankenheim

    207 Misc. 969 (N.Y. Misc. 1955)

    However, the court feels certain that the rights of the incompetent beneficiary will be protected adequately by the special guardian. If there are any serious objections to the account, the moving parties should communicate them to him. Matter of Battey ( 260 A.D. 362), cited by the movants, is not in point. It does not appear in that case that the incompetent was deceased.