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
MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL BUS MATRON INJURED ON THE BUS, DID NOT HAVE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
THE NYC WATER BOARD DETERMINED PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE REDUCTION IN SEWER CHARGES BUT WAS NOT NAMED AS A RESPONDENT IN PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION; THE WATER BOARD MUST BE ADDED AS A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT IN RPAPL 1371 FOR BRINGING A MOTION FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PURCHASER OF PROPERTY AT A FORECLOSURE SALE FUNCTIONS AS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE MOTION HERE WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
Seizure of Property for Construction of Firehouse Okay
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS REPLY TO A COUNTERCLAIM TO ADD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS NOT PALPABLY IMPROPER AND DEFENDANT SHOWED THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE BY NOT OPPOSING THE MOTION TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT USED HIS FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WITNESS (DEFENDANT’S COUSIN) TO INDUCE THE WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT INTRODUCTION OF THE WITNESS’S PRIOR STATEMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
Shareholder Should Not Have Been Awarded Damages Individually Re: a Derivative Cause of Action

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...