MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

care. He also sold AIP’s home and used some proceeds for his personal expenses, claiming she
authorized it. Court revoked nephew's power of attorney, appointed him as guardian of person only,
and appointed an attorney as guardian of property.
st
In re: Chase, 264 A.D.2d 330; 694 N.Y.S.2d 363 (1 Dept., 1999)
AIP suffered severe stroke which rendered him unable to communicate. In anticipation of his arrival
home, petitioner, daughter, arranged for wheelchair, hospital bed, therapist, and home health-care
aides to provide 24 hour care, established charge accounts at grocery store and pharmacy, made sure
his bills were paid, and hired a geriatric case manager. Despite conclusions of court evaluator that
portrayed petitioner as greedy daughter who was raiding assets of her incapacitated father, court
should not have issued an order naming a non-family member as guardian. Daughter was
appropriate and preferred guardian, evidence indicated that her care was proper, and there was no
actual financial conflict of interest based on evidence.
Matter of Kustka, 163 Misc.2d 694; 622 N.Y.S.2d 208 (Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., 1994)
Court properly departed from practice of appointing next of kin or close blood relatives or nominees
where it found that wife’s interests were adverse to AIP’s, where new wife (who was formerly AIP’s
housekeeper and nurse to AIP’s first wife) had been found to have been withdrawing AIP’s funds
from bank and sending them to her relatives in Czechoslovakia.
Matter of Donald Loury (Loury), 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 633; NYLJ, 9/23/93, p. 26, col. 2
(Surr. Ct., Kings Cty.)(Surr. Leone)
Petitioner relatives, sought to become co-guardians. Court finds that both were strongly motivated
to repay certain substantial loans to AIP from AIP’s father. Court finds interest of relatives adverse
to interest of ward, and declines to appoint petitioners despite usual practice appointing next of kin,
close blood relatives or their nominees.
Matter of Pasner (Tenenbaum), NYLJ, 7/14/95, p. 29, col. 1 (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty.)(Leone. J.)
Nephew was suitable guardian for uncle where he and uncle had close relationship, had worked
together, nephew was uncle's primary care giver and uncle had nominated nephew as guardian. Court
also expressed preference to appoint family member, despite their status as potential beneficiary
under will.
Matter of Wingate (Kern), 165 Misc.2d 108; 627 N.Y.S.2d 257 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., 1995)
Cross petition by friend of 40 years and former named power-of-attorney of AIP sought appointment
as guardian of personal needs and property management was denied where cross-petitioner had
previously engaged in activities with respect to AIP’s assets that are colorably inconsistent with
fiduciary duties. While cross-petitioner may, in fact, have at all times acted honorably and with no
intent to profit at expense of IP, court's responsibility is to give primary consideration to protection
120