Genuth v. Hynes, 53 A.D.2d 669 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Genuth v. Hynes, 53 A.D.2d 669 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of McGuire (nyappdiv, 2025-07-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of McGuire
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
In other words, the grant of equity jurisdiction to surrogates' courts also extends to the shaping of relief by such a court ( see Matter of Abraham L. , 53 AD2d 669, 670 [2d Dept 1976]; see generally Matter of Raymond v Davis , 248 NY 67, 71-72 [1928]; Deborah S. Kearns, Prac Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, SCPA 201).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Estate of Lewis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
It is well established that “[t]he Surrogate’s Court is a court of equity” (Matter of Dell, 154 Misc 216, 219 [1935]), with “the broadest possible equitable powers” in relation to the subject matter entrusted to its jurisdiction (Ma tter of McCafferty, 147 Misc 179, 201 [1933]; see NY Const, art VI, § 12 [e]; Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518, 523-524 [1995]; Matter of Stuart, 261 AD2d 550, 550 [1999]; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669, 670 [1976]; Matter of Beall, 184 Misc 881, 883-884 [1945]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Estate of Lewis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
It is well established that “[t]he Surrogate’s Court is a court of equity” (Matter of Dell, 154 Misc 216, 219 [1935]), with “the broadest possible equitable powers” in relation to the subject matter entrusted to its jurisdiction (Ma tter of McCafferty, 147 Misc 179, 201 [1933]; see NY Const, art VI, § 12 [e]; Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518, 523-524 [1995]; Matter of Stuart, 261 AD2d 550, 550 [1999]; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669, 670 [1976]; Matter of Beall, 184 Misc 881, 883-884 [1945]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re K. W. V.
N.Y. Sur. Ct. · 1977 · confidence medium
(But cf. Matter of Abraham L., supra, p 670; Matter of Patricia A. W., supra.) The cases last cited indicate how wary are the courts in terminating the parental bonds unless the proof is clear of abandonment or permanent neglect.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Samantha B.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
In view of the history of litigation between appellant and the mother, his attempts to enforce his visitation rights, his exercise of those rights for nine months, his mailing of gifts and cards and his consistent (albeit deficient) contributions to his child’s support, we cannot say the record demonstrates that petitioners have carried their heavy burden of establishing conduct on the part of appellant which “evinces a purposeful ridding of parental obligations and the foregoing of parental rights — a withholding of interest, presence, affection, care and support” (Matter of Corey L v…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Sol Genuth
v.
Charles J. Hynes, as Deputy Attorney-General of the State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 21, 1976.
53 A.D.2d 669
1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13412
Published

In a proceeding to quash a certain subpoena duces tecum, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 4, 1976, which dismissed the petition. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Petitioner Sol Genuth is the administrator of the Ross Nursing Home, which is owned and operated by a partnership. He was served with a subpoena, addressed to "Sol Genuth, Administrator, Ross Nursing Home”, which called for the production of certain books and records of the nursing home before the Grand Jury on November 10, 1975. On his appeal from Special Term’s denial of his motion to quash, he argues solely that CPLR 310 and 318 require that a partner or an agent designated by the partnership, be served in order to gain jurisdiction over the home and to compel the production of its books and records. A nursing home is not a family business, but falls within the definition of a hospital (Matter of Kent Nursing Home v Office of Special State Prosecutor for Health & Social Servs., 49 AD2d 616, affd 38 NY2d 260, 268). Petitioner’s argument on appeal ignores the fact that the subpoena duces tecum calls for the production of records before the Grand Jury. His claim that he does not possess the documents may be made when he appears before that body and may be tested on a motion to punish for contempt. The motion to quash was therefore properly denied. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Margett, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.