You are here: / / THE PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED...
,

THE PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PETITIONER IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petition for guardianship of the child should not have been dismissed on the ground petitioner was not a relative. The applicable provision of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA 1703) states the petition can be brought by “any person:”

​Although the petitioner is not biologically related to the child, SCPA 1703, which is applicable to this proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 661), provides that a petition for the appointment of a guardian may be brought by “any person” (SCPA 1703 …). Nor was there any basis in the record to dismiss the petition with prejudice … .  Matter of Karma-Marie W. (Jerry W.), 2025 NY Slip Op 00104, Second Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: Pursuant to SCPA 1703 “any person” may petition for guardianship of a child. There is no requirement that petitioner be related to the child.

 

You might also like
THE NURSING HOME SUED BY DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER AS EXECUTOR OF HER MOTHER’S ESTATE BROUGHT A THIRD-PARTY ACTION AGAINST THE DAUGHTER ALLEGING HER MOTHER’S INJURIES DID NOT RESULT FROM A FALL AT THE NURSING HOME BUT RATHER FROM THE DAUGHTER’S NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE NURSING HOME’S INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE HOME CARE AND SUPERVISION OF HER MOTHER; UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THERE EXISTED NO DUTY OF CARE UNDER WHICH THE DAUGHTER COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR CONTRIBUTION BY THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS BREACH OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS A VARIANCE EXPLAINED 2ND DEPT.
ABSENT PROOF OF 16-YEAR-OLD CHILD’S COLLEGE PLANS, ANY AWARD OF COLLEGE EXPENSES WOULD BE PREMATURE.
LOST PROFITS PROPERLY AWARDED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF SUBCONTRACT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
TOWN LAW PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW RE THE DISCHARGE SETBACK FOR A BOW AND ARROW (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE HOMEOWNER HIRED CONTRACTORS TO REPAIR HER HOME AND VISITED THE PROPERTY AS THE WORK WAS BEING DONE SHE DID NOT DIRECT OR SUPERVISE THE WORK AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Legal Underpinning of the “Fellow Officer” Rule Explained

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

A MINOR INJURY TO ONE CHILD BY ANOTHER WHILE MOTHER WAS NAPPING NEARBY, AND... PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S...