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… [A]lthough the Mental Hygiene Law, as originally enacted, encouraged courts to consider a compensation plan similar to the guidelines set forth in the SCPA after the statute was amended in 2004, all references to the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 ALLEGEDLY FELL INTO A DITCH WHICH WAS COVERED BY A TARP; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS THE ONLY WITNESS AND THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT ROUTE DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
WAIVER OF APPEAL ENCOMPASSES APPELLATE DIVISION’S INTEREST-OF-JUSTICE JURISDICTION, INCLUDING THE POWER TO REVIEW THE HARSHNESS OF AN AGREED SENTENCE.
DEFENDANT WAS REPEATEDLY WARNED HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO 45 YEARS AFTER TRIAL WHEN, IN FACT, HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE CAPPED AT 20 YEARS; DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS GROUND FOR AN ATTACK ON HIS SENTENCE AND THEREFORE DID NOT NEED TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL BY MOVING TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLAINT ALLEGING LEGAL MALPRACTICE STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION, WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM IN TIME TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES, THEREBY PRECLUDING THE MALPRACTICE ACTION, COULD NOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS DECEASED BROTHER MADE AN INTER VIVOS GIFT OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT TO PLAINTIFF; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS APPLIES AND THERE WAS NO WRITING; AND THE FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE TRANSFER PROVISIONS OF THE PROPRIETARY LEASE NEGATED A FINDING OF DONATIVE INTENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF INHALED ENOUGHT ASBESTOS FIBERS TO CAUSE HIS CANCER; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
A MOVING CAR IS A PLACE WHERE THE VICTIM IS NOT LIKELY TO BE FOUND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KIDNAPPING STATUTE, UNDER THE FACTS, UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE.
TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON A PATIENT’S FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME), THE NO-FAULT INSURER MUST SHOW BOTH THAT THE PATIENT DID NOT SHOW UP AND THE REQUEST FOR THE IME AND THE SCHEDULING OF THE IME COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIRED TIME-FRAMES (FIRST 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

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...