You are here: / / ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN...

ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THE RETAINER BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FROM THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S FUNDS, NO PROOF THE ATTORNEYS WERE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the attorneys (the appellants), who had accepted a retainer to contest the removal of a guardian (the daughter) for an incapacitated person (Domenica P.), were not required to return the retainer which had been paid from the incapacitated person’s funds. The Second Department determined there was no evidence the attorneys were aware of the source of the funds:

This particular proceeding is substantially different from a Mental Hygiene Law § 81.43 proceeding brought directly against the incapacitated person’s attorney-in-fact … , or directly against someone having a different type of fiduciary and confidential relationship with the incapacitated person … . This turnover proceeding was brought against the law firm retained by the daughter to challenge the Supreme Court’s decision to remove her as guardian of the person of her incapacitated mother, with whom she had been living for some time. In the absence of any indicia that the appellants colluded with the daughter in converting her mother’s funds, or had substantial knowledge that the money used for the retainer was derived from funds belonging to Domenica P., no judgment against them is warranted.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the inquiry by the appellants was sufficient. The appellants accepted a check from the daughter’s individual checking account. After the appellants asked the daughter if this was her own money or if it belonged to Domenica P., she told them that the $20,000 came from her own savings. Under these circumstances, the appellants had no reasonable obligation to further investigate, or assess the truthfulness of, their prospective client. What is most revealing is that the appellant law firm rightfully rejected a subsequent check from the daughter drawn on an account held jointly in names of the daughter and Domenica P. Matter of Domenica P., 2018 NY Slip Op 02151, Second Dept 3-28-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (GUARDIANSHIP, ATTORNEYS, ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THE RETAINER BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FROM THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S FUNDS, NO PROOF THE ATTORNEYS WERE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/GUARDIANSHIP (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THE RETAINER BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FROM THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S FUNDS, NO PROOF THE ATTORNEYS WERE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, RETAINER, ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THE RETAINER BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FROM THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S FUNDS, NO PROOF THE ATTORNEYS WERE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Failure to Include Restitution in Plea Negotiations Precluded Imposing Restitution at Sentencing
No Showing Attorney Had Acquired Any Client Confidences Before Changing Firms
THE NOTICE SENT TO THE BORROWERS IN 2012 WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT; THEREFORE THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Article 81 Guardianship Hearing Should Not Have Been Held in the Absence of the Alleged Incapacitated Person; Counsel Should Have Been Appointed for the Alleged Incapacitated Person
ALTHOUGH NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ORAL CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW ENTIRELY REPLACED THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A RECURRENT ICY CONDITION, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN OPINION; ANY WEAKNESSES IN THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WENT TO ITS WEIGHT NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Homeowner Demonstrated She Did Not Have Actual or Constructive Notice of the Dangerous Condition and Did Not Create the Dangerous Condition (Deck Collapsed When Plaintiff Was Inspecting the Property Prior to Beginning Work)
Family Court Has No Power to Add to Terms of Remittitur

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

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE ON THE GROUND CUTTING A TREE, BECAUSE GRAVITY WAS... SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL...