MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

Matter of Cecelia Gullas, 2009 NY Slip Op 31653U; 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5425 (Sup. Ct.
NY Cty 2009) (Madden, J.)
The court denied a motion by a respondent in an eviction proceeding to have the proceeding
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. At the commencement of the proceeding, respondent had an
Article 81 guardian and the guardian was not served with the initiatory papers. Eventually, prior to
any conferences or hearings taking place, the guardian was served with all notices and litigation
documents. Later, respondent successfully moved to have the guardianship terminated and the court
in that proceeding made the finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent’s
ability to provide for her needs was not impaired. Moreover, respondent had actual notice of the
eviction proceeding, had an opportunity to be heard and eventually was heard despite her many
attempts to delay the proceedings. Therefore the court in the eviction proceeding found the motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction to be without merit.
Matter of Elizabeth B., 73A.D.3d 410; 901 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1st Dept, 2010)
The Appellate Division, First Department upheld an order of the trial court that: (a) denied the
motion of NY Foundation for Senior Citizens Guardianship Services for a stay of eviction, (b)
directed the guardian to place the IP in a shelter, (c) directed the Guardian to ensure that her heath
needs were attended to in the shelter, and (d) directed the Guardian to continue searching for suitable
affordable housing for he while she was in the shelter. The trial court had noted that it was issuing
this order, even though petitioner had not specified all the housing programs it had explored and its
reasons for rejected them because, it concluded, the immediate problem was the IP’s financial
situation and her age.
31175 LLC v. Shapiro, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 7513; 241 NYLJ 11 (Sup. Ct. NY Cty.)
(Schneider, J.)
In a nuisance holdover proceeding involving a mentally and physically disabled 71 year old man, the
court dismissed the co-op’s petition because it found that the evidence established that respondent
had a diligent guardian who was attentive to his needs and circumstances and who has responded
responsibly to the complaints and concerns of the coop. Respondent was also now subject to an
Assisted Outpatient Treatment order and was under considerable supervision.
111