You are here: / Mental Hygiene Law

Need for Appointment of a Guardian of Property Not Demonstrated, Criteria Explained

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appellant’s sister, Marie F., did not meet her burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence appellant was incapacitated. The sister had been appellant’s property guardian and, in being removed, requested that another guardian be appointed. The court explained the relevant criteria:

“Mental Hygiene Law article 81 confers upon the court the discretion to determine whether a guardian should be appointed for an alleged incapacitated person” … . “In exercising its discretion to appoint a guardian for an individual’s property . . . , a court must make a two-pronged determination: first, that the appointment is necessary to manage the property or financial affairs of that person, and, second, that the individual either agrees to the appointment or that the individual is incapacitated’ as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02(b)” … . A person is incapacitated when the person is likely to suffer harm because: (1) the person is unable to provide for property management, and (2) the person cannot adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of such inability (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b]). A determination that a person is incapacitated under the provisions of Mental Hygiene Law article 81 “must be based on clear and convincing evidence” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.12[a]). When a party seeks to terminate a guardianship, “the burden of proof shall be on the person objecting to such relief” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36[d]).

Here, although Marie F. wished to be removed as guardian, she was the only person who objected to the termination of the guardianship position and asked the Supreme Court to appoint a new guardian. However, Marie F. failed to meet her burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant was incapacitated. The hearing testimony demonstrated that the appellant managed her own checking account, paid bills relating to her apartment with her social security disability income, and was taking steps to challenge the Medicaid lien. While the appellant was currently unemployed, she holds a Master’s degree and testified that she was “interviewing consistently.” Although Marie F. testified that the appellant had delusions and difficulty maintaining employment, her testimony was vague, unsupported by additional evidence, and did not rise to the level of clearly and convincingly demonstrating the appellant’s inability to provide for property management and a lack of understanding about the nature and consequences of such inability. Similarly, although Marie F. testified as to the appellant’s spending habits, she failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the appellant’s expenditures over the years were wasteful and thereby indicative of an inability on the part of the appellant to provide for her own property management and understand her budgetary constraints.

Since the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that the appellant was unable to manage her finances or understand and appreciate her limitations, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the appellant was incapacitated, appointing a new guardian of her property, and denying her motion to terminate the guardianship. Matter of Deborah P. (Marie F.), 2015 NY Slip Op 07977, 2nd Dept 11-4-15

 

, , ,

Expert Who Evaluated Sex Offender As Part of the Initial Case Review Team Was Properly Allowed to Testify at the Civil Commitment Hearing

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that the psychologist/psychiatrist (Barnes), who was part of the sex offender’s (respondent’s) case review team which recommended civil commitment, was properly allowed to testify at the Article 10 hearing. The respondent had sought to prevent Barnes from testifying because another psychiatrist (for the state) had been appointed for the hearing. The Third Department held that nothing in the Mental Hygiene Law prevented both experts from testifying for the state, and nothing in the Mental Hygiene Law prevented Barnes from having access to relevant diagnostic information generated after he had completed his evaluation for the case review team:

The degree to which Mental Hygiene Law article 10 authorizes a psychiatric examiner who has evaluated a respondent pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.05 (e) to continue to participate in subsequent proceedings involving the same respondent appears to be a question of first impression. However, nothing in the statute affirmatively precludes such continued participation, and the Court of Appeals has held that relevant evidence may be admissible in article 10 proceedings when “no statute prohibits its use” (Matter of State of New York v John P., 20 NY3d 941, 943 [2012]). As for whether a psychiatric examiner may supplement his or her evaluation report by investigating records of the respondent’s progress following completion of the report, and then rely on such updated information in testifying on the question of confinement, as Barnes did here, Mental Hygiene Law § 10.05 (e) provides the case management team and assigned psychiatric examiner with extensive access to relevant records as part of the initial evaluation. To limit the psychiatric examiner’s subsequent access to relevant information would be inconsistent with the statutory provisions that permit the parties to offer additional evidence on the question of a respondent’s dangerousness at the dispositional hearing and further direct that, “[i]n making a finding of disposition, the court shall consider . . . all available information about the prospects for the respondent’s possible re-entry into the community” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f] [emphasis added]).

Contrary to respondent’s argument, petitioner was not required to demonstrate that Barnes’ testimony was “necessary.” Instead, in the absence of any rule prohibiting such evidence, the test for admissibility is whether the testimony is material and relevant to the issues posed … . Here, Barnes possessed knowledge of respondent’s pathology that was clearly material and relevant on the issue of whether he required confinement. * * *

Likewise, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of respondent’s motion for the appointment of a second expert. Matter of State of New York v James K., 2015 NY Slip Op 07874, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

, ,

Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) Alone Will Not Support Civil Commitment of Sex Offender

The Second Department noted that the diagnosis that a sex offender suffers from anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) is insufficient to justify civil commitment:

A diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder (hereinafter ASPD) “has so little relevance to the controlling legal criteria of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) that it cannot be relied upon to show mental abnormality for [Mental Hygiene Law] article 10 purposes” … . Since ASPD was the sole diagnosis underlying the jury’s finding that the appellant suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), the finding was not supported by legally sufficient evidence, and the petition must be dismissed … .  Matter of State of New York v Odell A., 2015 NY Slip Op 07851, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

, ,

Patient Held In a Mental Health Facility After the Court Order Authorizing Confinement Had Expired Was Entitled to Habeas Corpus Relief Pursuant to CPLR Article 70

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, reversing the appellate division, determined that a patient, who was held in a mental health facility pursuant to a court order which the facility neglected to extend, was entitled to release pursuant to a CPLR article 70 habeas corpus proceeding. The hospital unsuccessfully argued that the only habeas-corpus relief available to the patient was pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 33.15 which required an inquiry into the patient’s mental state:

CPLR 7001 provides that article 70 applies to common-law and statutory writs of habeas corpus “[e]xcept as otherwise prescribed by statute” (CPLR 7001). However, nothing in the plain language of Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15 purports to limit the availability of the common-law writ in Mental Hygiene Law proceedings. Rather, section 33.15 enhances the efficacy of the writ of habeas corpus, as our case law dictates, and thereby ensures that patients are not committed and retained without due process of law. That is, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15 allows patients to seek a writ of habeas corpus when they are being held pursuant to a court order but, nevertheless, believe they have sufficiently recovered from their mental illness so that their continued retention is unwarranted; in such cases, determining the legality of their retention would require an inquiry into their mental state. On the other hand, patients whose detention is otherwise unauthorized may proceed under the habeas corpus provisions of CPLR article 70 since the legality of their detention can be determined on the basis of, for example, whether the appropriate procedures have been followed, without the need for a hearing into their mental state.  People ex rel. DeLia v Munsey, 2015 NY Slip Op 07697, CtApp 10-22-15

 

, ,

Proof of Inability to Control Sexual Behavior (Over and Above Proof of Antisocial Personality Disorder [ASPD]), Deemed Sufficient to Justify Confinement as a Dangerous Sex Offender

After the Court of Appeals determined that Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) was not a sufficient ground for a finding of a “mental abnormality” requiring confinement pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law, Supreme Court vacated its prior adjudication that respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement. The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, over a two-justice dissent, reversed Supreme Court and reinstated the confinement. The majority concluded there was sufficient evidence of mental disorders (over and above ASPD) which rendered respondent unable to control his sexual behavior. The dissenters found the evidence insufficient. Both the majority and the dissent went through the evidence in detail. The majority explained the general analytical criteria:

In order “[t]o demonstrate that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, petitioner was required to prove ‘by clear and convincing evidence that . . . respondent has a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control [his] behavior, that [he] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility'” … . Respondent takes issue with the finding that he suffered from a mental abnormality, i.e., “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him . . . to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in [his] having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [i]…).

Substantive due process requires that evidence of a mental abnormality reflect a “serious difficulty in controlling behavior” that, “when viewed in light of such features of the case as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis, and the severity of the mental abnormality itself, . . . [is] sufficient to distinguish the dangerous sexual offender whose serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjects him [or her] to civil commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case” … . As such, “the New York statutory structure does not run afoul of substantive due process because it requires [petitioner] to prove that the individual is dangerous, and the dangerousness must be coupled with a mental abnormality, which — by definition — incorporates the additional requirement that the offender have serious difficulty with behavioral control” … . The Court of Appeals has determined that a diagnosis of ASPD, without more, does not meet that requirement, as it “establishes only a general tendency toward criminality, and has no necessary relationship to a difficulty in controlling one’s sexual behavior” … . Matter of State of New York v Richard TT., 2015 NY Slip Op 06557, 3rd Dept 8-13-15

 

Insufficient Evidence of Incapacity—Appointment of Guardian Reversed

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that the allegedly incapacitated person (AIP) was in fact incapacitated:

In order for a court to exercise its authority to appoint a personal needs guardian, it must make a two-pronged determination (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a]…). First, the court must determine that “the appointment is necessary to provide for the personal needs of that person, including food, clothing, shelter, health care, or safety” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][1]). Second, the court must determine “that the person agrees to the appointment, or that the person is incapacitated” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][2]).

With respect to the second prong, “[t]he determination of incapacity . . . shall consist of a determination that a person is likely to suffer harm because” (1) “the person is unable to provide for [his or her] personal needs” and (2) “the person cannot adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of such inability” (Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.02[b][1], [2]). In reaching its determination as to whether an individual is incapacitated, the court is required to “give primary consideration to the functional level and functional limitations of the person” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[c]).

“A determination that a person is incapacitated . . . must be based on clear and convincing evidence” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.12[a]; see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b]). “The burden of proof shall be on the petitioner” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.12[a]…).

Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the AIP is incapacitated (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b]…). The testimony presented by the petitioner at the hearing failed to show that the AIP was unable to provide for his personal needs and that he was unable to adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of any such inability … . The Supreme Court’s conclusion that the AIP “suffers from dementia” was not supported by the record. The petitioner’s medical expert testified that the AIP had not “evidenced . . . dementia” and was “capable of impressive cognitive functioning” … . Matter of Edward S. (Georgis-Corey), 2015 NY Slip Op 06351, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, , , ,

Waiver of a Jury Trial in an Article 10 Sex-Offender Civil Commitment Proceeding Requires an On-the-Record Colloquy After Consultation with Counsel

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, in a matter of first impression, determined that the state and federal constitutions mandated an on-the-record waiver of the right to a jury trail in an Article 10 sex-offender civil commitment proceeding. Here, the respondent sent a letter to the judge explaining his reasons for wanting a non-jury trial. The letter was deemed insufficient to establish a knowing waiver.

… [A]respondent’s statutory right to a jury trial in an article 10 proceeding is protected by Article I, § 2 of the New York State Constitution, which provides that “[t]rial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitution shall remain inviolate forever.” * * *

In view of the fact that article 10 proceedings are civil in nature, “the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments … govern the scope of procedural due process” … . Accordingly, a respondent’s waiver of the right to a jury must comport with the procedural due process requirements under both the United States and New York Constitutions. * * *

With these general principles in mind, we hold that in order to accomplish a valid waiver of the right to a jury trial in an article 10 proceeding under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07(b), and in accordance with due process, there must be an on-the-record colloquy, in order to ensure that the respondent understands the nature of the right, and that the respondent’s decision is knowing and voluntary after having had sufficient opportunity to consult with counsel … . * * *

We note, however, that a written waiver such as is mandated by CPL 320.10 in criminal proceedings is not required in order to satisfy the requirements of Mental Hygiene Law article 10 or due process … . Matter of State of New York v Ted B., 2015 NY Slip Op 06352, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

Best Interest of the Incapacitated Person Justified Removal of Guardian of Person and Property

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised its broad discretion in granting the cross-motion to remove the guardian of Helen S.’ person and property (pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 81.35). Helen S. testified that the guardian yelled and screamed at her, made her very nervous and upset causing her body to shake, and causing her to throw up. The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

A guardian may be removed pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35 when ” the guardian fails to comply with an order, is guilty of misconduct, or for any other cause which to the court shall appear just'” … . “The trial court is accorded considerable discretion in determining whether a guardian should be replaced,” and the “overarching concern remains the best interest of the incapacitated person” … .  Matter of Helen S. (Falero), 2015 NY Slip Op 06153, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, ,

The Guardian of an Incapacitated Person May Not, After the Incapacitated Person’s Death, Use Guardianship Funds to Pay a Debt Incurred by the Incapacitated Person Prior to Death (Here a Debt Owed the Nursing Home Where the Incapacitated Person Was Cared For)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined Mental Hygiene Law 81.44 does not permit “a guardian to retain property of an incapacitated person after the incapacitated person has died for the purpose of paying a claim against the incapacitated person that arose before such person’s death.” “… [T]he issue [here was] whether property held by … [the] guardian at the time of [the incapacitated person’s] death automatically became the property of her estate or could be withheld by [the guardian] for the purpose of paying the claim, out of the guardianship account, that [the nursing home] had noticed before [the incapacitated person] died.” Based upon the legislative history of Mental Hygiene Law 81.44, the court determined that, after an incapacitated person’s death, the guardian may use guardianship funds only to pay claims related to the administration of the guardianship, and may not use them to pay debts incurred by the incapacitated person:

The plain language of subdivision (d) of Mental Hygiene Law § 81.44 requires that it is to be read in conjunction with subdivision (e) of the same section, which considers the property a guardian may retain following the death of an incapacitated person. Further, our precedent requires such a review … . In subdivision (e) of section 81.44, the Legislature allowed a guardian to retain from the estate of a deceased incapacitated person “property equal in value to the claim for administrative costs, liens and debts” (emphasis added). That construct suggests that the Legislature meant to permit the retention only of property equal in value to the expenses incurred with respect to the administration of the guardianship, i.e., property needed to satisfy administrative costs, administrative liens, and administrative claims. * * *

…[The legislative history] compels the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend for section 81.44 to permit a guardian to retain funds following the death of an incapacitated person for the purpose of paying a claim (other than a claim related to the administration of the guardianship) against the incapacitated person that arose before that person’s death. Inasmuch as [the nursing home’s] claim for medical services rendered to [the incapacitated person] is unrelated to the administration of her guardianship, we conclude that Mental Hygiene Law § 81.44 does not allow [the guardian] to withhold from [the incapacitated person’s] estate funds to pay [the incapacitated person’s] debt to [the nursing home]. Matter of Shannon, 2015 NY Slip Op 04789, CtApp 6-10-15

 

,

Potential Conflict of Interest Arising from Representation of Co-Guardians Required that the Co-Guardians Each Have Their Own Counsel

The First Department, over a dissent, determined a single attorney representing co-guardians of an incapacitated person created the appearance of representing conflicting interests. The court held there was a potential conflict of interest because the co-guardians were dependent upon the incapacitated person and had competing financial interests in the terms of a trust and as beneficiaries of the incapacitated person’s will:

It is well settled that an attorney “must avoid not only the fact, but even the appearance, of representing conflicting interests” … . “[W]ith rare and conditional exceptions, the lawyer may not place himself in a position where a conflicting interest may, even inadvertently, affect, or give the appearance of affecting, the obligations of the professional relationship” … . Moreover, “doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification” … . Full disclosure and prior consent by the parties may, on occasion, obviate the objection to conflicting representation … .

Applying these principles to the facts of this case, we find that the motion court properly determined that joint representation of the co-guardians by a single counsel would be improper. While an actual conflict may not have arisen “at this time” and in this proceeding as the dissent posits, there is clearly a potential conflict of interest … . Matter of Strasser v Asher, 2015 NY Slip Op 04763, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

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