You are here: / / Petition by Guardian to Transfer Assets of Incapacitated Person Properly...

Petition by Guardian to Transfer Assets of Incapacitated Person Properly Denied

In denying a petition by a guardian to transfer some of the assets of an incapacitated person, the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

A court may grant a petition pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.21 to authorize a guardian to transfer a part of an incapacitated person’s assets to or for the benefit of another person if it is satisfied by clear and convincing evidence, inter alia, that “a competent, reasonable individual in the position of the incapacitated person would be likely to perform the act or acts under the same circumstances” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.21[e][2];…. Here, given the limited information …in support of the petition, and the absence of any indication that the proposed asset transfer plan was approved by the guardian of the property …., the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petition.  Matter of Modesta V, 2013 NY Slip Op 04818, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

You might also like
2014 COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FILL VACANCIES IN THE 2016 COUNTY COMMITTEE (SECOND DEPT).
Surrogate’s Court Properly Declined to Suspend the Fiduciaries’ Letters Testamentary and Letters of Trusteeship Pending a Hearing to Determine the Contested Facts
Existence of Brady Material Concerning Law Suit Against Interrogating Officer for Eliciting a False Confession Required Hearing on Motion to Vacate Judgment of Conviction
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM AND WAS OPERATED ON BY AN INDEPENDENT SURGEON; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE EMERGENCY ROOM EXCEPTION APPLIED AND THE HOSPITAL WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE SURGEON’S ALLEGED MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).
Lack of Standing Defense Waived If Not Raised In Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Lack of Standing Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect–Sua Sponte Dismissal on that Ground Improper
THE ISSUE ON A PRIOR APPEAL WAS WHETHER THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE GRANTED; THE ISSUES ARE DIFFERENT AND THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
SENTENCE DEEMED HARSH AND EXCESSIVE; REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
THE REACH OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND THE MEANING OF “OWNER” AS USED IN THAT STATUTE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Article 78 Petition in Nature of Prohibition Against Judge and District Attorney... Worker Taking Onsite Measurements for Offsite Fabrication Covered Under Labor...