You are here: / / THE CO-GUARDIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED WITHOUT A HEARING; ALTHOUGH...
,

THE CO-GUARDIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED WITHOUT A HEARING; ALTHOUGH THE CO-GUARDIAN HAS A FELONY CONVICTION, SHE OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES; THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH SURROGATE’S COURT CAN REMOVE THE CO-GUARDIAN IN THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, REMOVAL IS NOT AUTOMATIC (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the co-guardians’ petition to remove co-guardian respondent Suzette Bonerb should not have been granted without a hearing. Petitioner and Suzette Bonerb were previously appointed co-guardians of their adult child, Whitney Bonerb, and co-trustees of the Whitney Bonerb Credit Shelter Supplemental Needs Trust. Although respondent Suzette had been convicted of a felony, which would allow removal by Surrogate’s Court sua sponte, Suzette had been granted a certificate of relief from disabilities. Therefore a hearing was required:

… [T]he certificate does not prevent the Surrogate “from revoking [respondent’s appointments] in the exercise of its discretion (see Correction Law § 701 [3]); it merely preclude[s] the automatic revocation of” those appointments … . * * *

… [R]espondent conceded that she had been convicted of a felony, but established that she disclosed that fact in the applications for appointments and that she later obtained a certificate of relief from disabilities with respect to that felony (see Correction Law § 701). … [S]he contended that she had been advised by counsel that she was eligible to be appointed a fiduciary at the time when she signed the statement to that effect. Consequently, the Surrogate must make a credibility determination concerning those issues, and then exercise her discretion concerning whether respondent should be removed from her appointments … . Matter of Bonerb, 2021 NY Slip Op 06487, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

You might also like
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A LOOSE PANEL ON A SELF CHECK OUT MACHINE IN DEFENDANT’S STORE; THE PANEL ALLEGEDLY FELL OFF AND INJURED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
HERE THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT HAD ORDERED A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL RECORD WAS WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING WAS PROPERLY DONE AND AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; THE DISSENT TOOK ISSUE WITH NATURE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A SNOWMAKING MACHINE.
AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE TRAFFIC STOP OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS BASED ON A POLICE OFFICER’S COMPUTER DMV CHECK WHICH SHOWED DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE HAD LAPSED; IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPPRESSION MOTION THE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED VERIFICATION THAT THE INSURANCE HAD NOT LAPSED; AT THAT POINT THE PRESUMPTION OF RELIABILITY DISAPPEARED AND THE PEOPLE WERE REQUIRED TO SHOW THE RELIABILITY OF THE DMV CHECK, WHICH THEY FAILED TO DO (FOURTH DEPT).
Knowledge of the Health Issue Underlying Plaintiff’s Claim, and Knowledge of Another Similar Claim, Was Not Enough to Provide Defendant with Notice of Plaintiff’s Claim/Request to File Late Notice of Claim Should Not Have Been Granted
DEFENDANT WAS THREATENED WITH A HARSHER SENTENCE SHOULD SHE DECIDE TO GO TO TRIAL; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, TRAINING AND SUPERVISION BASED UPON EMPLOYEES’ ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT; THE PROPER THEORY IS RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (FOURTH DEPT).
IF POSSIBLE, A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING MUST BE HELD TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY AT THE TIME HE ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA, IF A HEARING CANNOT BE HELD THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED.

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

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE THE ICE AND SNOW WHERE PLAINTIFF... THE FACTS THAT THE PARKED CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS SITTING WITH TWO OTHERS...