D. D., Matter of
| Decision Date | 07 August 1978 |
| Citation | 408 N.Y.S.2d 104,64 A.D.2d 898 |
| Parties | In the Matter of D. D. Appeal of A. D., guardian of the person of D. D. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Clurfeld, Ross & Krevitz, New York City (Hyman Clurfeld and David B. Saxe, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Kathleen M. Kane, Garden City, law guardian (no brief filed).
Before LATHAM, J. P., and RABIN, GULOTTA and HAWKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a special proceeding to authorize the petitioner to consent to a surgical sterilization of her mentally retarded infant daughter, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County, dated September 28, 1977, which denied the application.
Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The mother and natural guardian of the infant D. D. filed a verified petition with the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County, in which she sought an order authorizing her to consent to the surgical sterilization of her daughter. The petition, which was supported by a physician's letter, alleges that D. D., born July 9, 1961, functions below the level of a five-year-old as a result of severe mental retardation. However, she is capable of bearing children. The petition further alleges that D. D. is attractive, physically well-developed, and that attempts have been made to seduce her. The petitioner and the physician's letter accompanying the petition conclude that D. D. would be unable to care for a baby in the event she were to become pregnant.
The Surrogate appointed a guardian ad litem for D. D., who submitted a report supporting the petitioner's application. The Surrogate denied the petition. He held that in the absence of legislative guidelines and specific statutory authority the court is not empowered to grant the relief requested.
In affirming the order of the Surrogate, we rest our decision on the more fundamental concept that the Surrogate's Court did not have the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to hear the instant case. The Surrogate's Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, whose subject matter jurisdiction is conferred solely by the State Constitution and by statute N.Y.Const., art. VI, § 12). As to matters within its scope of jurisdiction, it has power to make a complete and equitable disposition of the case (SCPA 201, subds. 2, 3; 209, subds. 9, 10). These powers of disposition, however, cannot provide the Surrogate with any broader jurisdictional authority than that specified in the statutes.
The Surrogate's Court is empowered to appoint a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conservatorship of N.
...331; Matter of S.C.E. (Del.Ch.1977) 378 A.2d 144; Application of A.D. (1977) 90 Misc.2d 236, 394 N.Y.S.2d 139; Matter of D.D. (1978) 64 A.D.2d 898, 408 N.Y.S.2d 104; Hudson v. Hudson (Ala.1979) 378 So.2d 310.6 In Ruby v. Massey, supra, 452 F.Supp. 361, which stands for the proposition, reco......
-
P.S. by Harbin v. W.S.
...467; In re Penny N. (1980) 120 N.H. 269, 414 A.2d 541; Application of A.D. (1977) 90 Misc.2d 236, 394 N.Y.S.2d 139, aff'd, (1978) 64 A.D.2d 898, 408 N.Y.S.2d 104; Matter of Guardianship of Eberhardy (1980) 97 Wis.2d 654, 294 N.W.2d 540. As the Supreme Court of Colorado "Simply allowing the ......
-
Grady, Matter of
...R., 515 S.W.2d 467 (Mo.1974); Application of A. D., 90 Misc.2d 236, 394 N.Y.S.2d 139 (Surr.Ct.1977), aff'd on other grounds, 64 A.D.2d 898, 408 N.Y.S.2d 104 (1978); Frazier v. Levi, 440 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ.App.1969). In our view these decisions do not reflect adequate sensitivity to the con......
- Moe, Matter of