You are here: / / ALTHOUGH AURELIA S WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO BE AN INCAPACITATED PERSON, THE...
,

ALTHOUGH AURELIA S WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO BE AN INCAPACITATED PERSON, THE POWERS AWARDED THE GUARDIAN WERE TOO BROAD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the powers awarded to the guardian of the incapacitated person, Aurelia S, were too broad:

… “[T]he determination of incapacity . . . shall consist of a determination that a person is likely to suffer harm because” (1) “the person is unable to provide for [his or her] personal needs and/or property management” and (2) “the person cannot adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of such inability” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b] …). In reaching its determination, the court shall give primary consideration to the functional level and functional limitations of the person (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[c]). Significantly, any guardian appointed shall 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[a][2]).

… [T]he broad powers granted to the appointed guardian are inconsistent with the statutory requirement that the guardian be granted “only those powers which are necessary” and “which shall constitute the least restrictive form of intervention” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][2] … ). Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court should have appointed a guardian only to manage Aurelia S.’s property and financial affairs, which shall have the following limited powers: (1) apply for, establish, and maintain eligibility for the maximum amount of government and private benefits; (2) marshal and manage income and assets; (3) enter into contracts, subject to prior court approval; (4) invest funds with the same authority as a trustee pursuant to EPTL 11-2.2; and (5) investigate any misappropriation of funds of Aurelia S. and take appropriate action. Matter of Aurelia S., 2020 NY Slip Op 04560, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IN A GUARDED DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT AND IN A LOCKED BATHROOM IN THE JAIL; BECAUSE THE COUNTY WAS ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL, NOT A PROPRIETARY, FUNCTION (PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE PARKING LOT AND JAIL), PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE THE COUNTY OWED HIM A SPECIAL DUTY, WHICH HE WAS UNABLE TO DO (SECOND DEPT). ​
AN ALLEGED CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS NOT IN PLAIN VIEW IN THE VEHICLE; THEREFORE THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A CLOSED CONTAINER IN THE VEHICLE, WHICH REVEALED A WEAPON, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; WEAPONS CHARGES DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Review of Rulings on Variances Explained
THE CUSTODY AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT A PLENARY HEARING; WHERE A CUSTODY AWARD IS MADE WITHOUT A HEARING THE COURT SHOULD ARTICULATE THE FACTORS CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RELATING TO DISCLOSURE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL’S AFFIRMATION DEMONSTRATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION, THE CROSS-MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Defendant Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees after Plaintiff’s Motion for a Voluntary Discontinuance in a Foreclosure Action Was Granted Without Prejudice—Defendant Was Not a “Prevailing Party” within the Meaning of Real Property Law 282—Denial of Attorney’s Fees Was Not an Abuse of Discretion Under CPLR 3217 (c)
Process Servers Outside of New York City Are Not Required to Keep a “Log Book
THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (OF THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT) AND NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN (THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED PLAINTIFF WAS SENT TO A PRIEST NOT EMPLOYED BY THE SCHOOL FOR DISCIPLINE AND WAS MOLESTED BY THE PRIEST (SECOND 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

BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE... RULING THAT DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THREE PRIOR GUN-RELATED...