You are here: / / PETITIONER, WHO IS MILDLY AUTISTIC, DEMONSTRATED (1) HE IS NOT DISABLED...
,

PETITIONER, WHO IS MILDLY AUTISTIC, DEMONSTRATED (1) HE IS NOT DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (SCPA) ARTICLE 17-A AND (2) HE UNDERSTANDS AND IS ABLE TO MANAGE HIS FINANCIAL AFFAIRS; THE PETITION TO DISSOLVE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined petitioner, who is mildly autistic, demonstrated he did not have a disability within the meaning of Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA) article 17-a and, therefore, his petition to dissolve the guardianship of his property should have been granted. Petitioner held a job was up-to-date on all his bills:

The petitioner established that he did not have a disability as defined in SCPA article 17-A, as his evidence showed that his ability to “understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of decisions” was not impaired (id. § 1750-a[1]). The petitioner presented medical evidence that his autism was mild and that he did not have significant deficits in adaptive functioning. He also showed, through his own testimony, that he understood the consequences of decisions in financial and other areas. * * *

The petitioner understood, for example, how his rent was calculated, the importance of staying up to date with his bills, what expenses were nonessential and could be eliminated when he needed to conserve money, how to open a bank account, how to obtain advice from the bank on improving his financial situation, and that he would not have direct access to his trust funds if the guardianship were dissolved and that those funds were placed into a pooled trust. Matter of Robert C. B., 2022 NY Slip Op 04301, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: The medical records demonstrated petitioner’s mild autism is not a disability within the meaning of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act. Petitioner demonstrated through his own testimony that he understands and is able to manage his financial affairs. The petition to dissolve the guardianship of his property should have been granted.

 

You might also like
Because Defendant Was Negligent As a Matter of Law (Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law), the Verdict In Favor of the Defendant Was Properly Set Aside
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECIDED BY DEFAULT CANNOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN LITIGATED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE BASED ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
THE MEDICAL RECORDS DID NOT PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE HOSPITAL OF A POTENTIAL MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THE HOSPITAL WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY IN SERVING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SLIP AND FALL CALL COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED, THE LIGHTER BURDEN OF PROOF PURSUANT TO THE NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF VARIANCES BY THE ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER DID NOT PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, UNDER THE CPLR THE RESPONDENT MUST PROVIDE THE TRANSCRIPT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Neither CPLR 5015 Nor Family Court Act 451 Was a Bar to Mother’s Petition to Modify a Child-Support Money Judgment by Temporarily Suspending Interest
FATHER, WHO LIVES IN CALIFORNIA, SOUGHT MODIFICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER; MOTHER, WHO LIVES IN NEW YORK, SOUGHT MODIFICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ORDER IN NEW YORK; FAMILY COURT CORRECTLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE CALIFORNIA COURT BUT DID NOT ALLOW THE PARTIES TO PRESENT FACTS AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE DISMISSING THE NEW YORK PETITION; FAMILY COURT REVERSED (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

THE POLICE WERE “ACTING IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE FUNCTION” WHEN THEY... FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS CONSENT TO ADOPTION WAS REQUIRED; ALTHOUGH FATHER...