You are here: / / THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE A TESTIMONIAL HEARING BEFORE THE...

THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE A TESTIMONIAL HEARING BEFORE THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that removal of a guardian does not require a testimonial hearing:

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 … . 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 [incapacitated person], 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 … . Matter of Edgar V.L., 2023 NY Slip Op 01360, First Dept 3-16-23

Practice Point: Although the Mental Hygiene Law requires a testimonial hearing before the appointment of a guardian for an incapacitated person, no hearing is required for the removal of a guardian.

 

You might also like
Homeowner’s Exemption Applied/Fact that Three Unrelated Families Lived in the Home Did Not Negate the Finding that the Home Was a Single Family Dwelling
Product Warranty Does Not Extend Statute of Limitations
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT TO ADD NAMES OF POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE OFFICERS ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CITY DEFENDANT, FAILURE TO NAME THE OFFICERS WAS NOT A MISTAKE, AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A DILIGENT EFFORT TO LEARN THE OFFICERS’ NAMES BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED (FIRST DEPT).
VERDICT AWARDING $0 DAMAGES FOR FUTURE AND PAIN SUFFERING SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, $100,000 WOULD BE REASONABLE COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT).
CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE, EXACERBATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THE CROSSWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED OF A SLIP AND FALL DEFENDANT TO WIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FALL AFTER STEPPING ON LOOSE PIPES NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE THREAT MADE BY DEFENDANT WAS PERSONAL IN NATURE AND WAS NOT DIRECTED AT THE CIVILIAN POPULATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERRORISM STATUTE (PENAL LAW 490.20); THE CONVICTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST 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 UNEXPLAINED DELAY OF 38 MONTHS IN SEEKING A WARRANT FOR A DNA SAMPLE FROM... THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFFS’ INSURANCE BROKERS SHOULD...