You are here: / / COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT CALCULATED ACCORDING ...

COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT CALCULATED ACCORDING TO THE FORMULA IN THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT, GUARDIAN ENTITLED ONLY TO REASONABLE COMPENSATION.

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly set the compensation for a guardian (Goldstein) who served for about a month at $100,000, rejecting the guardian’s request for about $700,000. The Mental Hygiene Law requires only “reasonable” compensation, and does not require use of the compensation formula set out in the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SPCA):

… [A]lthough the Mental Hygiene Law, as originally enacted, encouraged courts to consider a compensation plan similar to the guidelines set forth in the SCPA after the statute was amended in 2004, all references to the SCPA were eliminated. The Mental Hygiene Law does not provide any formula or guideline for the court to follow in setting compensation for an Article 81 guardian, nor does it refer to such compensation as a “commission.” * * *

… [W]e reject Goldstein’s argument that the court was required to find misfeasance or misconduct on his part in order to deny him a full commission calculated under the SCPA. Under the Mental Hygiene Law, Goldstein is entitled to no more than “reasonable compensation” for his services, and there is no mathematical formula in the mental hygiene law that the motion court failed to apply or disregarded. A court may, and in this case did, with respect to Goldstein’s services as temporary guardian, choose to compensate a guardian in quantum meruit, using an hourly rate … . Whether using the hourly rate approved by the court of $350 per hour or using his usual hourly rate of $495, Goldstein was well compensated for his time … . Matter of Goldstein v Zabel, 2017 NY Slip Op 00426, 1st Dept 1-24-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT FIGURED ACCORDING TO THE FORMULA IN THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT, GUARDIAN ENTITLED ONLY TO REASONABLE COMPENSATION)/GUARDIANSHIP (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT FIGURED ACCORDING TO THE FORMULA IN THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT, GUARDIAN ENTITLED ONLY TO REASONABLE COMPENSATION)/SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (GUARDIANSHIP, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT FIGURED ACCORDING TO THE FORMULA IN THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT, GUARDIAN ENTITLED ONLY TO REASONABLE COMPENSATION)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED BEFORE THE FALL AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE MAT AND WARNING SIGN PLACED IN THE AREA WERE INADEQUATE (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF MISSED A STATUS CONFERENCE; THE SUA SPONTE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE; PLAINTIFF CORRECTLY MOVED TO VACATE THE ORDER AND APPEALED THE DENIAL (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER AND SENTENCED TO 60 DAYS IN JAIL AND FIVE YEARS PROBATION FOR STEALING A BREAKFAST SANDWICH FROM A RESTAURANT; EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THE SENTENCE WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A PROBABILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STARTED AN ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN NEW YORK; THEN DEFENDANT STARTED AN ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN ROMANIA; THE RESULTS OF THE ROMANIAN ACTION MAY BE DISPOSITIVE IN THE NEW YORK ACTION; THE NEW YORK ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE ROMANIAN ACTION, EVEN THOUGH THE NEW YORK ACTION WAS COMMENCED FIRST (FIRST DEPT).
AFTER PLEADING GUILTY IN FULL SATISFACTION OF THE CHARGES IN THE INDICTMENT, A SECOND PLEA TO ANOTHER COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT WAS PRECLUDED (FIRST DEPT).
TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE, PRIOR RULING BY THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURIS... NO NOTICE OF ALLEGED SKIDDING AND SHAKING OF ESCALATOR, RES IPSA LOQUITUR NOT...