You are here: / / Insufficient Evidence of Incapacity—Appointment of Guardian Reve...

Insufficient Evidence of Incapacity—Appointment of Guardian Reversed

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that the allegedly incapacitated person (AIP) was in fact incapacitated:

In order for a court to exercise its authority to appoint a personal needs guardian, it must make a two-pronged determination (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a]…). First, the court must determine that “the appointment is necessary to provide for the personal needs of that person, including food, clothing, shelter, health care, or safety” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][1]). Second, the court must determine “that the person agrees to the appointment, or that the person is incapacitated” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][2]).

With respect to the second prong, “[t]he determination of incapacity . . . shall consist of a determination that a person is likely to suffer harm because” (1) “the person is unable to provide for [his or her] personal needs” and (2) “the person cannot adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of such inability” (Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.02[b][1], [2]). In reaching its determination as to whether an individual is incapacitated, the court is required to “give primary consideration to the functional level and functional limitations of the person” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[c]).

“A determination that a person is incapacitated . . . must be based on clear and convincing evidence” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.12[a]; see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b]). “The burden of proof shall be on the petitioner” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.12[a]…).

Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the AIP is incapacitated (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b]…). The testimony presented by the petitioner at the hearing failed to show that the AIP was unable to provide for his personal needs and that he was unable to adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of any such inability … . The Supreme Court’s conclusion that the AIP “suffers from dementia” was not supported by the record. The petitioner’s medical expert testified that the AIP had not “evidenced . . . dementia” and was “capable of impressive cognitive functioning” … . Matter of Edward S. (Georgis-Corey), 2015 NY Slip Op 06351, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

You might also like
HERE THE “BORROWER” SIGNED THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND THEN CONVEYED A TWO-THIRDS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO TWO “OWNERS” WHO DID NOT SIGN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THE BANK SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING THE ALLEGEDLY ABANDONED PROPERTY UNDER “QUASI CONTRACT” THEORIES; THE QUASI-CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS DEEMED TO COVER THE “BORROWER” AND THE NONSIGNATORY “OWNERS” (SECOND DEPT).
THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR.
STATEMENTS POSTED ON FACEBOOK CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S UNAUTHORIZED PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF A LANDMARK BUILDING WERE DEEMED NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION AND HYPERBOLE (SECOND DEPT).
ONE INCH DEEP DEPRESSION IN THE ROADWAY WHICH WAS SURROUNDED BY ORANGE MARKINGS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE TRIVIAL OR BOTH ‘OPEN AND OBVIOUS’ AND ‘NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS’ AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Constructive Trust Cause of Action Did Not Accrue When Defendant Acquired the Subject Property (In 1995 or 1996), But Rather When Defendant , Who Had Properly Acquired the Property, Breached Her Promise to Transfer an Interest in the Property to Plaintiff (In 2012)
GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE CHILD VICTIMS ACT COMPLAINTS WHERE DEFENDANT MOVES TO STRIKE “SCANDALOUS OR PREJUDICIAL MATTER” (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION/COMPLAINT AND THEN CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE PETITION/COMPLAINT WITHOUT ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION/COMPLAINT ON GROUNDS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE UNDERLYING ADMINSTRATIVE RULING (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

Breach of Contract Action Against School District Untimely—Notice of Claim... Waiver of a Jury Trial in an Article 10 Sex-Offender Civil Commitment Proceeding...