Matter of Von Bulow, 63 N.Y.2d 221 (1984)

r
r

The New York Court of Appeals cannot review an Appellate Division’s decision that substitutes its own discretion for that of the Special Term unless there was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law or the result is so outrageous as to shock the conscience.

r
r

Summary

r

This case concerns the appealability to the New York Court of Appeals of an Appellate Division order modifying a Special Term’s discretionary appointment of a third co-committee to manage the affairs of Martha Von Bulow, who was deemed incompetent. The Special Term appointed respondents Farr and Chemical Bank, along with a third party, as co-committees. The Appellate Division removed the third co-committee. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appellate Division’s decision was an exercise of its own discretion, not an abuse of discretion as a matter of law, and thus not reviewable by the Court of Appeals.

r
r

Facts

r

Respondents Farr and Chemical Bank petitioned for a determination of Martha Von Bulow’s incompetency. Special Term appointed Farr and Chemical, who had managed Von Bulow’s finances for decades, as co-committees. Appellants Claus and Cosima Von Bulow (Von Bulow’s husband and daughter) objected, arguing Farr and Chemical were aligned with family members hostile to them. Despite finding no conflict of interest, Special Term appointed a third, independent co-committee, believing a fresh perspective would benefit Von Bulow’s estate.

r
r

Procedural History

r

Special Term appointed Farr, Chemical Bank, and a third party as co-committees. Claus and Cosima Von Bulow appealed the decision to the Appellate Division, challenging the committee composition. The Appellate Division modified the Special Term’s order