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
VACATING A NOTE OF ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME AS MARKING A CASE OFF PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404; WHEN A NOTE OF ISSUE IS VACATED, THE ACTION REVERTS TO A PRE-NOTE OF ISSUE STATUS AND CAN BE RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT MEETING THE STRINGENT CPLR 3404 REQUIREMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRECLUDE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO MOVE FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WITHIN ONE YEAR AS REQUIRED BY KINGS COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8 (SECOND DEPT).
THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW PROHIBITION OF SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL COSTS FROM A TORT ACTION SETTLEMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO SELF-FUNDED EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NOTICE BY PROOF WHICH MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK POSSESSED THE CORRECT VERSION OF THE NOTE, AND, THEREFORE, WHETHER THE BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
Testimony of Defense Expert About Reliability of Eyewitness Identifications Properly Precluded/Criteria for Such Testimony Explained
Where There Is a Surviving Partner and No Agreement to the Contrary, the Representative of a Deceased Partner Cannot Participate in the Winding Up of the Partnership and Has No Legal Right to the Partnership’s Assets, Books, Records or Business

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...