You are here: / / POWERS GRANTED TO THE GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE...

POWERS GRANTED TO THE GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE EXCEEDED THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT APPOINTED EVALUATOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly appointed a guardian for an incapacitated person, but should not have granted powers to the guardian over and above the powers recommended by the court-appointed evaluator:

Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11(f) provides that “[i]f on or before the return date designated in the order to show cause the alleged incapacitated person or counsel for the alleged incapacitated person raises issues of fact regarding the need for an appointment under this article and demands a jury trial of such issues, the court shall order a trial by jury thereof.” Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11(f) further states that “[f]ailure to make such a demand shall be deemed a waiver of the right to trial by jury.” …

Nevertheless, the judgment must be modified since the broad powers granted to the appointed guardian are inconsistent with the statutory requirement that the guardian be granted “only those powers which are necessary to provide for personal needs and/or property management of the incapacitated person in such a manner as appropriate to the individual and which shall constitute the least restrictive form of intervention” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[2]; see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.03[d]). Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court should have granted the guardian only those limited powers recommended in the report of the court-appointed evaluator. Matter of Heidi B. (Pasternak), 2018 NY Slip Op 06899, Second Dept 10-17-18

You might also like
SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT.
THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR LOST PROFITS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “LOST PROFITS” AS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS WAS ENTERED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
“Standing” to Bring Foreclosure Action Defined
Walkway Defect Trivial as a Matter of Law
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, A PORTION OF A LIGHT FIXTURE IN PLAINTIFF’S ON-CAMPUS ROOM FELL ON HER (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH AN ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN ISSUED, NO JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WAS ENTERED; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS STILL VIABLE AND PLAINTIFFS COULD MOVE TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
In Order for a Municipality to Be Liable for the Creation of a Dangerous Condition, the Dangerous Condition Must Result Immediately from the Negligent Act—Here the Allegation the Dangerous Condition Developed Over a Period of Years Was Not Sufficient

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

DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT... INJURED POLICE OFFICER CAN RECEIVE BOTH WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND GENERAL...