You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S...
,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (IP’S) SON AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HOLDING A TESTIMONIAL HEARING, CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have merely accepted the Court Examiner’s position that petitioner, the Incapacitated Person’s (IP’s) son, should be removed as guardian of the property. A hearing should have been held:

Petitioner interposed an answer in which he raised issues of law and fact. He claimed, in part, that some of his actions did not require further court order but were permissible under the original order appointing him as guardian. He also claimed that he obtained prior court approval, albeit in the informal manner (i.e. emails or phone calls) employed by the previous judge who was assigned to this matter. He also made credible arguments that the decisions he made benefitted, and did not harm, the IP’s estate … .

Rather than hold a testimonial hearing, Supreme Court simply accepted what the Court Examiner claimed in her motion and appointed a nonrelative successor guardian…. . …

We have long recognized that strangers will not be appointed either a guardian of the person or the property unless it is impossible to find someone within the family circle who is qualified to serve … . The preference for a relative may be overridden by a showing that the guardian-relative has rendered inadequate care to the IP, has an interest adverse to the IP or is otherwise unsuitable to exercise the powers necessary to assist the IP … . Moreover, the ultimate remedy of removal may be an abuse of discretion, where a guardian’s errors do not prejudice or harm the estate. The court should also consider whether other less drastic remedies, such as ordering compliance or reducing the Guardian’s compensation, would be appropriate. None of these considerations were addressed by the Supreme Court before removing petitioner…. . Matter of Roberts, 2022 NY Slip Op 03336, First Dept 5-19-22

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court improperly accepted the Court Examiner’s position and removed the Incapacitated Person’s (IP’s) son as guardian of the property without holding a hearing or making any findings. A full testimonial hearing, giving petitioner (the IP’s son) the opportunity to be heard, should have been held. The court noted that appointing a stranger as guardian is a last resort and that there are options, such as reducing a guardian’s compensation, which should be considered.

 

You might also like
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, LONG-ARM JURISDICTION WAS PROPERLY EXERCISED OVER AN OUT-OF-STATE CATHOLIC DIOCESE WHICH EMPLOYED DEFENDANT PRIEST WHO WAS ASSIGNED TO A NEW YORK PARISH (FIRST DEPT). ​
Subcontractor Who Is Not Vicariously Liable for the Acts or Omissions of Its Subcontractors Under Labor Law 200 May Be Vicariously Liable for those Acts or Omissions Under Labor Law 241 (6)
THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S TESTIMONY THAT DEFECTS IN THE HANDRAIL OR THE STAIR RISER HEIGHTS CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OVER $500,000 PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT WAS VACATED AND A NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
Termination of Petitioner’s Tenancy Based Upon An Isolated Angry Outburst Targeting a Housing Authority Employee Is “Shocking to the Conscience”
Writ of Prohibition Granted to Prevent Trial Judge from Precluding Testimony of Complainant—Complainant Would Not Release His Psychiatric Records
VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEWS OF RESPONDENT FATHER’S CHILDREN LED TO CRIMINAL SEXUAL ABUSE CHARGES AGAINST FATHER WHICH WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF WITNESS COOPERATION; THE VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEWS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SEALING REQUIREMENT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND CAN BE USED IN A FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY FATHER (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY WHO PURPORTED TO WAIVE SERVICE OF PROCEES AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION DEFENSES ON BEHALF OF ALL DEFENDANTS; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
OSTENSIBLE NON EMPLOYER WAS NOT A JOINT EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LIABILITY; CRITERIA FOR JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS 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

THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE STATED THAT THE CONTRACTOR... BOTH THE WIFE AND THE JUDGE WERE AWARE OF THE HUSBAND’S MENTAL ILLNESS...