MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

Matter of Maria Cedano, 171 Misc.2d 689; 655 N.Y.S.2d 283 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., 1997),
st
reversed, 251 A.D.2d 105; 674 N.Y.S.2d 34 (1 Dept., 1998)
Community guardian, which served as conservator for elderly woman before she was permanently
placed in long-term nursing home facility, may be appointed guardian, pursuant to Article 81, until
substitute guardian is located and appointed, even though under Social Services Law §473-d,
community guardian is required to relinquish duties once conservatee entered long-term residential
facility. Court notes that woman will have no one to watch over her if community guardian is
relieved of its duties and its account is settled. While Article 81 authorizes court to appoint
successor guardian, apparently no funding is available, and no public guardian or any other person
or entity is available, to serve as guardian for an indigent person residing in nursing home. Purpose
of Article 81 is not served by current funding scheme under which community guardians must
terminate services to older people who are placed in nursing homes.
Matter of Commissioner of Cayuga Cty. for Appointment of Guardian for Bessie C., 225
th
A.D.2d 1027; 639 N.Y.S.2d 234 (4 Dept., 1996)
Commissioner of DSS who seeks to recoup payments or resources from recipient of public
assistance has conflict of interest with AIP recipient of benefits and should not have been appointed
guardian of her property. A neutral, disinterested person should be appointed guardian of the
property. For same reason, it was error to appoint Commissioner of DSS special guardian for
purpose of exercising her right of election. Also executor and beneficiary of the estate from which
AIP stood to inherit has a conflict of interest with AIP that bars his appointment as guardian of her
property but there is no bar to his appointment as guardian of person.
rd
Erlich v. Oxenhorn (Matter of Lula XX), 224 A.D.2d 742; 637 N.Y.S.2d 234 (3 Dept., 1996),
app. dismissed, 88 N.Y.2d 842; 644 N.Y.S.2d 683 (1996)
Where there was longstanding ill will between AIP and DSS and DSS was petitioner and therefore
AIP’s adversary, there was conflict of interests and it was inappropriate for court to appoint DSS as
guardian.
Matter of Sutkowsky (Wallace), 270 A.D.2d 943; 705 N.Y.S.2d 786; (Sup. Ct., Onondaga Cty.,
2000)
Where commissioner of social services agency was appointed guardian of respondent, and order
directed commissioner to personally visit each of his wards four times per year, commissioner could
delegate duties of guardianship to staff.
(iii) Out of State/Foreign guardians
rd
Matter of Kathleen FF, 6 A.D.3d 1035; 776 N.Y.S.2d 609 (3 Dept 2004)
Court approves appointment of niece as guardian. Although it was not the main issue in the case,
123