MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

o. SNT as Alternative to Guardianship
Dinnigan v. ABC Corp , et al . , 35 Misc3d 1216A; 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1918 (Sup. Ct. Suff.
Cty.) (Whelan, J.)
In an application to approve an infant compromise in a tort claim proceeding, the court, inter alia,
ordered the funds placed in to an already existing SNT stating: "Such distribution obviates the need
for the appointment of [a] fiduciary of the property for the disabled plaintiff, such as an Article 81
property management guardian, guardian of the property of a person disabled under Article 17-A
et. seq. of the SCPA or the guardian of the property of an infant under CPLR 1210."
H. Voiding previously executed legal instruments including Wills, Conveyances,
Contracts, Health Care Proxies and Powers of Attorney
K.A.L v R.P., 2012 NY Slip Op 506520; 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1740 (Sup. Ct., Monroe
Cty.)(Dollinger, J.)
Court grants surviving spouse’s motion to dismiss the decedent’s daughter’s complaint seeking to
annul the decedent’s marriage, which took place as the decedent lay on his death bed, and
“simultaneously” with the decedent’s execution of a codicil to his will (at which time it was
undisputed that the decedent was of sound mind and free from any constraint or undue influence).
In so doing, the Court noted, inter alia, that the plaintiff did not state a cause of action under MHL
§81.29 (d) which permits a court to revoke a marriage contract, because not only had no guardian
been appointed for the decedent (a prerequisite for such relief), there was never even any suggestion
that the decedent was “insane or ‘mentally incapable.’”
Matter of Roberts, 34 Misc3d 1213A; 946 N.Y.S. 2d 69 (Surr. Ct., NY Cty., 2011) (Anderson,
J.)
The Surrogate Court denied so much of a motion for summary judgment by the decedent’s niece as
sought to dismiss the objections of the decedent’s relatives to the probate of a 2003 will and a 2004
codicil thereto, based on their claim that these testamentary instruments, in which the decedent
bequested an increasingly larger share of her estate to her niece, and a smaller share to relatives and
friends, was procured by undue influence. The Court held that based on the conflicting documents
submitted (which included hospital records from 2000 and 2004 showing that the decedent suffered
bouts of paranoia, dementia and confusion, an Article 81 petition which did not result in the
appointment of a guardian for the decedent, a psychiatrist’s affirmation, the court evaluator’s report
and the 1404 testimony of attesting witnesses), even though the decedent may have had the requisite
capacity to execute a will, triable issues of fact existed with respect to whether the instruments were
the product of the niece’s undue influence.
93