You are here: / / JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, TERMINATED THE GUARDIANSHIP OF AN INCAPACITATED...
,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, TERMINATED THE GUARDIANSHIP OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, terminated the guardianship of an incapacitated person (IP) without holding a hearing:

In April 2016, Fanny K. commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 seeking to be appointed as the guardian to manage Angeliki K.’s property located in Greece. After a hearing, the Supreme Court determined that Angeliki K. (hereinafter the IP) was incapacitated within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law article 81 and appointed Fanny K. (hereinafter the guardian) as the guardian of her property. In September 2018, due to the IP’s health problems and resultant inability to communicate in English, the IP was admitted to an assisted living and rehabilitation facility in Athens, Greece. In November 2018, the guardian moved for leave to change the IP’s place of abode from New York to the assisted living and rehabilitation facility, with the IP continuing to maintain her permanent residence in New York. The court, without a hearing, denied the motion and, sua sponte, terminated the guardianship due to a lack of a continuing nexus between the guardianship and New York.

The Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, terminated the guardianship, without a hearing, as a guardianship may be terminated “only on application of a guardian, the incapacitated person, or any other person entitled to commence a proceeding under Mental Hygiene Law article 81 with a hearing on notice” (… see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.36[b], [c] …). Matter of Angeliki K. (Fanny K.), 2020 NY Slip Op 02786, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

You might also like
People’s Failure to Provide Timely Notice of the Intent to Present Witnesses to Rebut the Testimony of Defendant’s Alibi Witness Required Reversal
Unwed Birth Father’s Consent for Adoption Properly Required
LAND HELD BY A MUNICIPALITY IN A PROPRIETARY CAPACITY IS NOT IMMUNE FROM ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT).
Where Deportation As a Result of a Guilty Plea Is Not Mentioned by the Court, Preservation of the Error Is Not Required
CRITERIA FOR DISCLOSURE OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC TESTING EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE.
WHERE AN EMPLOYEE ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ABSENT A VALID CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AN EMPLOYER CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION.
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION WITH PROOF AN ACT OR OMISSION DECREASED THE CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO TIMELY DETECT THE PRESENCE OF CANCER (SECOND DEPT).
“Hostile Work Environment” (Allegedly Offensive Sex-Related Remarks) and “Retaliation for Opposition to Discriminatory Practices” Causes of Action Explained

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

MANUFACTURER AND SELLER OF THE PRODUCT WHICH ALLEGEDLY INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF... ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT SETTLED WHETHER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW APPLIES TO A CIVIL PROCEEDING,...