You are here: / / Supreme Court Should Have Considered the Alleged Incapacitated Person’s...

Supreme Court Should Have Considered the Alleged Incapacitated Person’s (AIP’s) Available Resources Before Finding the AIP Incapacitated and In Need of a Guardian

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court’s determination the alleged incapacitated person (AIP) was incapacitated and needed a guardian.  Supreme Court did not consider the sufficiency of the AIP’s available resources:

We agree with the AIP that Supreme Court erred in making that determination without considering “the sufficiency and reliability of available resources’ (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02 [a] [2]) to satisfy the AIP’s personal needs and property management without the need for a guardian” … . It is undisputed that the AIP had “available resources,” i.e., a power of attorney and healthcare proxy (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.03 [e]), and the court should therefore have inquired whether those advance directives were adequate to protect the AIP’s personal and property interests before determining that she is incapacitated and in need of a guardian … . Matter of Mitchell, 2015 NY Slip Op 00165, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

You might also like
THE WARRANTLESS SEIZURE AND SEARCH OF A BAG IN DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE; ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).
VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER PROPERLY ADMITTED IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL TO SHOW LARCENOUS INTENT.
COUNTY’S INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION WAS RATIONAL AND COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE DISTURBED BY THE COURT; TIME LIMITS APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS ARE DISCRETIONARY.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIMA FACIE TORT BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE THE SOLE MOTIVATION OF DEFENDANTS WAS DISINETERESTED MALEVOLENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
RELEASE DID NOT ENCOMPASS A BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF.
DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTORCYCLE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF ALL THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF THE GUILTY PLEA, INCLUDING THE FINE; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Collapse of Makeshift Scaffold Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment in Labor... Jury Verdict Finding Defendant’s Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause...