You are here: / / THE “ALLEGEDLY INCAPACITATED PERSON” (AIP) WAS NOT PRESENT...
, ,

THE “ALLEGEDLY INCAPACITATED PERSON” (AIP) WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW GUARDIANSHIP HEARING; THE AIP’S ATTORNEY CANNOT CONSENT TO THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN IF THE AIP IS NOT PRESENT; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the absence of the allegedly incapacitated person (AIP) from the proceeding to appoint a guardian pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law required remittal:

“Guardianship proceedings, as a drastic intervention in a person’s liberty, must adhere to proper procedural standards” … . Pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11, where a petition to have a guardian appointed for an AIP has been filed … , “[a] determination that the appointment of a guardian is necessary for a person alleged to be incapacitated shall be made only after a hearing” … . Any party to the proceeding “shall” have the right to present evidence, call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses and be represented by counsel … .

Most importantly, “[t]he hearing must be conducted in the presence of the person alleged to be incapacitated, either at the courthouse or where the person alleged to be incapacitated resides” … , unless the person is outside the state or “all the information before the court clearly establishes that (i) the person alleged to be incapacitated is completely unable to participate in the hearing or (ii) no meaningful participation will result from the person’s presence at the hearing” … . “There is an ‘overarching value in a court having the opportunity to observe, firsthand, the allegedly incapacitated person’ ” … .

Here, the court did not conduct a hearing in the presence of the AIP. Although the court evaluator informed the court that “[a]ll of the parties here right now agree that the AIP needs a guardian,” it is unclear whether that statement by the court evaluator constitutes an agreement by the AIP’s attorney to the court’s determination to appoint a guardian for all of the AIP’s person and property. Regardless, even if we were to deem this a situation where the AIP’s attorney agreed that the AIP consented to the appointment, “a court should not accept counsel’s representation that the AIP has consented to the appointment of a guardian where the AIP is not present” … . “[T]he court must first determine whether the AIP has the requisite capacity to consent, and must then make a finding of the AIP’s agreement to the terms of the guardianship, on the record” … . Matter of Chang v Billie J.C.-W., 2025 NY Slip Op 02446, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: A Mental Hygiene Law guardianship hearing must be held in the presence of the allegedly incapacitated person (AIP) absent proof the AIP cannot meaningfully participate. The judge should be able to observe the AIP.

Practice Point: The AIP’s attorney cannot consent to the appointment of a guardian in the AIP’s absence.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA FOUND IN HIS GIRLFRIEND’S APARTMENT WAS DEEMED LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS AND PRAPHERNALIA WAS DEEMED AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Serve Complaint Upon Demand Required Dismissal of the Action
THE MEDICAL RECORDS SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE RESPONDENTS ADDRESSED THE RELEVANT ISSUES AT ORAL ARGUMENT; THE MEDICAL RECORDS DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM; ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE FOR DELAY WAS NOT ADEQUATE, THE DEFECT DID NOT REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
Use of an Address to Which the Respondent Was in the Process of Moving Did Not Constitute a False Statement within the Meaning of the Election Law
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MANAGER OF PLAINTIFF BAR PUSHED A MAN DOWN A SET OF STAIRS CAUSING FATAL INJURIES; THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY EXCLUSION IN DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED AND THE INSURER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE BAR (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction, Supported by Evidence that (1) the People May Have Violated Their “Brady” Obligation to Inform the Defense of a Plea Deal Made In Return for Testimony and (2) a Juror May Have Had a Mental Disability, Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing
ELIMINATION OF A POSITION WAS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER DISMISSAL UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT, ALTHOUGH RETRENCHMENT IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE CLAIM THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT WAS DEEMED ARBITRABLE (FOURTH 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

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EMPLOYER’S DIRECTIVE TO TAKE THE COVID-19 VACCINE... HERE THE EVIDENCE WAS PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A...