MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

to include the power to do extensive discovery concerning recent questionable transfers of the AIP’s
assets and to commence litigation to recover misappropriated assets if appropriate. The court denied
the motion on the grounds that “the relief sought appear[ed] overly zealous and premature” The court
further reasoned that the temporary guardians had been appointed for the limited purpose of paying
the AIPs bills and marshaling her assets to preserve the status quo until the underlying issues in the
guardianship processing were determined. Finally, the court also pointed out that there was no
evidence that the assets were at risk of dissipation or waste or that the parties thought to have
misappropriated her assets any longer had access to the AIP’s funds.
rd
Matter of Grace “PP”, 245 A.D.2d 824; 666 N.Y.S.2d 793 (3 Dept., 1997), lv. to app. denied,
92 N.Y.2d 807; 678 N.Y.S.2d 593 (1998)
Temporary guardian was appointed, with specific limited power to place AIP in a nursing home.
Matter of Wingate (Longobardi), 166 Misc.2d 986; 637 N.Y.S.2d 1010 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty.,
1996)
It is not necessary for court to appoint temporary guardian to withdraw funds and write checks
against checking account. Court evaluator is appointed to protect property of AIP from waste,
misappropriation or loss. Consistent with the authority established in section 81.09 (e), court
evaluator may take necessary steps to preserve property of AIP, including management of the
checking account.
C. Special Guardians
Matter of Alice Zahnd, 27 Misc3d 1215A; 910 N.Y.S.2d 762 (Sup. Ct. Suff. Cty. 2010) (Luft,
J.)
Court appointed a special guardian with powers relating to a particular piece of real property that was
allegedly in violation of the town code. The court found that because the petitioner town had not
requested any further powers relating to the AIP’s overall needs, the court was constrained in
detailing the powers appropriate for the AIP. The court therefore, appointed the Special Guardian
not only to deal with the property at issue but also to investigate and identify any additional needs
and to make the appropriate application to the court for such powers.
Matter of Lambrigger, NYLJ, 5/31/94, p. 37, col. 1 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty.)(Luciano, J.)
Court denies petition for guardianship of AIP, who had suffered massive stroke that left her with
severe physical disabilities, holding that mental and physical disabilities are not co-extensive, noting
that AIP has not lost any cognitive abilities and is fully competent to make her own decisions,
including with matters such as property management. However, court did appoint special guardian
to help AIP “manifest and give effect to her own decisions.” Special guardian has no substituted
judgment power and may not make any decision without consulting with and explaining transaction
128