MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

Thereafter, the NY court accepted the findings of the French Court and appointed a temporary
guardian in NY without holding a hearing and without appointing a Court Evaluator. On appeal by
the AIP, the Appellate Division held that the NY court had not erred by accepting the findings of
the French court without a hearing or appointment of a Court Evaluator in NY.
Matter of M.R. v H.R., 2008 N.Y. MISC.. LEXIS 4347; 240 N.Y.L.J. 8 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty.
2008) (Hunter, J)
Temporary guardians had been appointed for the primary reason of placing the AIP in a nursing
home over his objection and did so place him prior to trial. They further intended to transfer him
to another facility. MHLS counsel for the AIP sought discharge of those temporary co-guardians
prior to trial and the Court Evaluator asserted that she had reviewed the AIP’s medical records in the
nursing home and saw no evidence of incapacity or need for placement in the nursing home. The
court discharged the temporary co-guardians stating that it was ultimately for the jury to decide
whether the AIP required a guardian with power over the person to place him in a nursing home.
The court further ordered that the temporary co-guardians turn over to the AIP all of his bankbooks,
documents, wallet and other personal effects.
“Contempt Fines Mount Against Attorney who Acted as Guardian for Former Judge,” by
Daniel Wise, 1/1/2007 NYLJ 1 (col. 4)
Interesting article highlighting the danger of appointing consecutive temporary guardians who are
not required by statute to file annual reports.
Matter of Nelly M., 46A.D.3d 904; 848 N.Y.S.2d 705 (2nd Dept. 2007)
Supreme Court appointed a temporary guardian without affording the attorney in fact notice and an
opportunity to be heard. The attorney in fact appealed. The Appellate Division held that since the
trial court subsequently made the appointment permanent after a hearing on notice to the appellant
the error complained of has been rendered academic.
nd
Matter of Carol C., 41 A.D.3d 474; 837 N.Y.S. 2d 321 (2 Dept., 2007)
The Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court, Kings County, had providently exercised its
discretion in authorizing the temporary guardian to sell the AIP’s brownstone and in authorizing her
to purchase a new residence for the AIP, noting that it was not reasonable for the AIP to continue
to reside therein. The Appellate Division also upheld, as a provident exercise of discretion, the
Supreme Court’s determination that no just cause existed which would have warranted the temporary
guardian’s removal, noting that the temporary guardian had adequately fulfilled her responsibilities.
Matter of Astor, 13 Misc.3d 862; 827 N.Y.S.2d 530 (Sup. Ct., NY Cty. 2006)
A bank that had been appointed as a temporary guardian moved for an order expanding its powers
127