You are here: / / THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON (AIP) MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO...
,

THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON (AIP) MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYIGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an alleged incapacitated person (AIP) must be given the opportunity to be present during guardianship proceedings:

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian of the person and property of her adult daughter Nima B. R., an alleged incapacitated person (hereinafter the AIP). At a hearing on the petition, which was conducted virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the AIP was not present. Although the AIP had indicated to her counsel that she intended to appear, she advised her counsel that she was not feeling well and needed an extra hour to get to the courthouse, and subsequently advised her counsel that she did not feel well and would not be attending. The Supreme Court conducted the hearing in the AIP’s absence, finding that she had “voluntarily absented herself” and noting that she was represented by counsel, had no burden of proof, and was not required to testify. …

Guardianship proceedings, as a drastic intervention in a person’s liberty, must adhere to proper procedural standards … . Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11(c) provides that a hearing to determine whether the appointment of a guardian is necessary for an alleged incapacitated person “must be conducted in the presence of the person alleged to be incapacitated,” including at the alleged incapacitated person’s place of residence if necessary … . “There is an ‘overarching value in a court having the opportunity to observe, firsthand, the allegedly incapacitated person'” … . Accordingly, we remit the matter … for a new hearing at which the AIP shall be afforded an opportunity to be present and a new determination thereafter. Matter of Nima B.R. (Rae-Garwood), 2024 NY Slip Op 06347, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: An alleged incapacitated person (AIP) has the right to be present at a guardianship proceeding pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law. Here the AIP said she was not feeling well and would not attend. The matter was remitted for a new hearing after affording the AIP the opportunity to attend.

 

You might also like
INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for a Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Documentary Evidence and a Motion to Dismiss Supported by Submitted Evidence Explained (Not Met Here)
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MERE DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF WAS TOLD NOT TO WORK ON THE DAY HE FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR; THE DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE INCLUDES PERMISSION TO WORK.
Landowners Who Have Been Granted a Variance Are Necessary Parties In an Action Challenging the Variance (CPLR 1001 (b))
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE IN EVERY CASE WHERE DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE, CARE REMITTED FOR THAT DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE TESTIMONY EXCEEDED THE CPLR 3101 (D) DISCLOSURE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DUE DILIGENCE IN ASCERTAINING THE NAME OF THE PARTY REFERRED TO AS “JOHN DOE” IN THE COMPLIANT RENDERING THE ACTION TIME-BARRED; ALTHOUGH THE COURT PROPERLY DEEMED PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE NAMED PARTY TIMELY FILED NUNC PRO TUNC, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE NAMED PARTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED RETROACTIVELY ONCE THE DEFECT WAS CURED (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

AN ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH IS NOT LICENSED IN NEW YORK CITY CANNOT SUE... A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHERE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ALLEGE ANY...