You are here: / / COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT CALCULATED ACCORDING ...

COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT CALCULATED ACCORDING TO THE FORMULA IN THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT, GUARDIAN ENTITLED ONLY TO REASONABLE COMPENSATION.

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly set the compensation for a guardian (Goldstein) who served for about a month at $100,000, rejecting the guardian’s request for about $700,000. The Mental Hygiene Law requires only “reasonable” compensation, and does not require use of the compensation formula set out in the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SPCA):

… [A]lthough the Mental Hygiene Law, as originally enacted, encouraged courts to consider a compensation plan similar to the guidelines set forth in the SCPA after the statute was amended in 2004, all references to the SCPA were eliminated. The Mental Hygiene Law does not provide any formula or guideline for the court to follow in setting compensation for an Article 81 guardian, nor does it refer to such compensation as a “commission.” * * *

… [W]e reject Goldstein’s argument that the court was required to find misfeasance or misconduct on his part in order to deny him a full commission calculated under the SCPA. Under the Mental Hygiene Law, Goldstein is entitled to no more than “reasonable compensation” for his services, and there is no mathematical formula in the mental hygiene law that the motion court failed to apply or disregarded. A court may, and in this case did, with respect to Goldstein’s services as temporary guardian, choose to compensate a guardian in quantum meruit, using an hourly rate … . Whether using the hourly rate approved by the court of $350 per hour or using his usual hourly rate of $495, Goldstein was well compensated for his time … . Matter of Goldstein v Zabel, 2017 NY Slip Op 00426, 1st Dept 1-24-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT FIGURED ACCORDING TO THE FORMULA IN THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT, GUARDIAN ENTITLED ONLY TO REASONABLE COMPENSATION)/GUARDIANSHIP (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT FIGURED ACCORDING TO THE FORMULA IN THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT, GUARDIAN ENTITLED ONLY TO REASONABLE COMPENSATION)/SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (GUARDIANSHIP, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT FIGURED ACCORDING TO THE FORMULA IN THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT, GUARDIAN ENTITLED ONLY TO REASONABLE COMPENSATION)

You might also like
DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HIS ANSWER TO ASSERT A GRAVES AMENDMENT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (AVAILABLE TO THE LESSOR OF A VEHICLE); PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE LATENESS OF THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Judicial Estoppel Applies Only to Party Who Prevailed in Prior Proceeding
Questions of Fact Raised Whether Plaintiff’s Infant-Daughter’s Physical and Mental Deficiencies Were Caused by Inadequate Medical Treatment Prior to and During Birth, Despite Indications Plaintiff’s Daughter Was Born Healthy
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF MISSED A STATUS CONFERENCE; THE SUA SPONTE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE; PLAINTIFF CORRECTLY MOVED TO VACATE THE ORDER AND APPEALED THE DENIAL (FIRST DEPT).
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND COUNSEL DURING THE SALE OF PLAINTIFFS’ BUSINESS TO DEFENDANT ARE PRIVILEGED (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER SUFFERED NO DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, DEFENDANT EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT; PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-ORAL-CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF PARTIAL PERFORMANCE BY DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE ON THE ORAL MODIFICATION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF ANY PROBLEMS WITH A DOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY MALFUNCTIONED CAUSING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO FALL OUT OF A WHEELCHAIR LIFT (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Use of a Partially Open A-Frame Ladder Did Not Constitute Misuse of a Safety Device—Directed Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff on Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action Was Proper/Plaintiff’s Apparent Failure to Turn Over All of the Relevant Medical Records Required a New Trial on Damages

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

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURIS... NO NOTICE OF ALLEGED SKIDDING AND SHAKING OF ESCALATOR, RES IPSA LOQUITUR NOT...