You are here: / / ​ THE GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF THE INCAPACITATED PERSON (...
,

​ THE GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF THE INCAPACITATED PERSON (IP) AND THE ATTORNEY APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE IP WERE PROPERLY REMOVED AND DISCHARGED WITHOUT A TESTIMONIAL HEARING, WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE GUARDIAN AND THE ATTORNEY FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE BONA FIDES OF THE IP’S MARRIAGE AND THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined the temporary guardian of the person and property (Mock) and the attorney appointed represent the incapacitated person (IP), Edgar, were properly removed and discharged without a testimonial hearing. The opinion is rich with allegations Edgar was being victimized financially which cannot be fairly summarized here:

On October 2, 2018, Alison Loew, the sister and only sibling of Edgar Valentine Loew, brought a petition for the appointment of an article 81 guardian for her then 74-year-old brother. The petition alleged that Edgar, who is wealthy, but suffers from mental health issues and has some physical limitations, was the victim of systematic financial exploitation by Rachida Naciri. …

A court evaluator (Britt Burner) was appointed on October 2, 2018, appellant Gary Elias was appointed as Edgar’s attorney, and appellant Judy S. Mock was appointed as Edgar’s temporary guardian of the person and property. * * *

The Mental Hygiene Law does not support appellants’ contention that they were entitled to a testimonial hearing in this case before being removed. Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35 provides that a guardian may be removed when she or he “fails to comply with an order, is guilty of misconduct, or for any other cause which to the court shall appear just” … . A motion on notice, served on the persons specified in Mental Hygiene Law § 81.16 (c), is required but there is no statutory right to a hearing (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.16[c]; 81.35). This relaxed requirement stands in distinction to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11 (a), which provides that the petition for the appointment of a guardian for an alleged IP, whose liberty interests are at stake, “shall be made only after a hearing” … . The reason a guardian has “no due process right to a full hearing,” nor is a “full blown” hearing necessary for their removal, is that a guardian has no “property interest” to protect … .

Although a guardian cannot be summarily removed in the absence of a fully developed record or without any findings, and a hearing may be required where material facts are disputed … , here the parties had not only fully briefed [the] motion, but the salient facts were also known to the court and largely undisputed. A decision to remove a guardian of the person and property of an IP is within the sound discretion of the trial court … . Matter of Loew, 2022 NY Slip Op 06436, First Dept First Dept 11-15-22

Practice Point: The guardian and the attorney appointed to represent the incapacitated person (IP) were properly removed and discharged without a testimonial hearing, which is not required by the Mental Hygiene Law. The guardian and the attorney failed to investigate the bona fides of the IP’s marriage and prenuptial agreement.

You might also like
NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER.
Church’s Decision to Terminate Minister Constitutionally Protected Under “Ministerial Exception”
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (IP’S) SON AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HOLDING A TESTIMONIAL HEARING, CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE SECURITY COMPANY WERE PROPERLY FOUND LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SEVERE INJURIES CAUSED BY TWELVE-YEAR-OLD BOYS WHO THREW A SHOPPING CART OVER A FOURTH FLOOR RAILING STRIKING PLAINTIFF ON THE GROUND BELOW (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING ASSOCIATION WITH GANGS WAS STRICKEN BECAUSE THE CONDITION WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE OR DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION; THE ISSUE SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND A LACK OF PRESERVATION (FIRST DEPT).
MANAGER OF COOPERATIVE DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY IN EXTERIOR PUBLIC AREAS IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WHICH HAD RELINQUISHED CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A FLOOR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SLIPPERY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN WAXED (FIRST DEPT). ​
COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED IN DUE TO A RECENT STORM.

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

PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN ALLEGED THE NEGLIGENCE OF A TRAFFIC OFFICER IN DIRECTING... THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS UNDER THE...