Matter of Lockwood

• Decision Date: 30 October 2003
• Docket Number: 1710- 1710A.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: In re Judicial Settlement, etc., Manice DeForest Lockwood, Deceased. The Trustees of Columbia University, et al., Respondents-Respondents, Julia Planchart Lockwood, Respondent-Appellant, Alfred F. Sica, Former Guardian Ad Litem-Appellant, Edward F. Cox, Guardian Ad Litem-Respondent.

Page 1

In re Judicial Settlement, etc., Manice DeForest Lockwood, Deceased The Trustees of Columbia University, et al., Respondents-Respondents Julia Planchart Lockwood, Respondent-Appellant Alfred F. Sica, Former Guardian Ad Litem-Appellant Edward F. Cox, Guardian Ad Litem-Respondent.

1710- 1710A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

Decided on October 30, 2003.

Marilyn G. Ordover, for Respondents-Respondents.

Melvin F. Greenberg, for Respondent-Appellant.

John Sebastian Vaneria, for litem-Appellant.

Susan F. Bloom for Litem-Respondent.

Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Friedman, JJ.

Order, Surrogate's Court (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about January 18, 2001, which, in a proceeding for judicial settlement of a final account, insofar as appealed from, sua sponte removed appellant Sica as guardian ad litem for respondents infants, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Decree, same court and Surrogate, entered on or about December 12, 2001, insofar as appealed from, awarding appellant Sica $10,000 as compensation for his services as guardian ad litem and approving a settlement between respondents infants and respondents charities, unanimously affirmed as to the fee award, and the appeal therefrom otherwise unanimously dismissed, all without costs.

The Surrogate properly removed appellant as guardian ad litem based upon a finding, amply supported by the record, that his "beclouded view of the facts" and other derelictions were jeopardizing the infants' interests (see Matter of Ford, 79 AD2d 403, 406; DeForte v Liggett & Meyers Tobacco Co., 42 Misc 2d 721, 723). Neither notice nor a hearing was required since the removal was done by the Surrogate sua sponte (cf. Matter of Brown, 157 AD2d 978; Mullins v Saul, 130 AD2d 634), and not at

Page 2

the request of a party (e.g. Matter of Ford, supra). In view of appellant's failure to provide adequate time records, and the time he spent on matters that did nothing to advance the infants' interests, it cannot be said the award for his services was unreasonable (cf. Matter of Burk, 6 AD2d 429; Matter of Slade, 99 AD2d 668).

Appellant Lockwood, the decedent's widow, lacks standing to appeal the decree's approval of the settlement. Although she was cited and received process on the infants' behalf (see SCPA 307[4]), she is not a judicially appointed guardian, and therefore cannot appear on their behalf (see SCPA 103[40]; 401; 402; Matter of Maroney, 20 AD2d 678). Nor does she herself have any interest in the trust remainder, the subject of the settlement (see Matter of Richmond County Socy. For Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 11...