MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

Matter of Williams, 12 Misc.3d 1191A; 824 N.Y.S.2d 770 (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty. 2006)(Belen,
J.)
The court declined to honor the AIP’s nomination of two individuals as her co-guardians because:
(1) the first nominee was disqualified under MHL §81.19 (e) since she was the Director of Social
Work at the nursing home that had recently provided care to her, even though the AIP was no longer
a resident of the nursing facility and even though the statute made no reference to former caregivers;
(2) the second nominee, the AIP’s attorney, had been nominated only to serve as a co-guardian along
with the first disqualified nominee, and (3) the VERA Institute guardianship project was available
to serve in the alternative and had done a good job as Temporary Guardian. The court made this
appointment even though the AIP objected to the Vera Institute continuing to act as guardian
because the Court found that the aspects of their prior service that she objected to concerning her
lack of access to her own funds appeared to have already been remedied.
In the Matter of the Application of GWC, 4 Misc. 3d 1004A; 791 N.Y.S.2d 269 (Sup. Ct.,
Tompkins Cty, 2004) (Peckham, J.)
Court allows mildly mentally retarded individual with IQ of 50 to nominate her siblings as her own
co-guardians upon finding that the nominees are fit and their appointment is in the best interest of
the AIP.
Matter of Nasquan S., 2 A.D.3d 531; 767 N.Y.S.2d 906 (2nd Dept. 2003)
Petitioner was the AIP’s mother. She sought to be appointed guardian and to have the attorney
appointed as co-guardian. The trial court refused to appoint the attorney. As co-guardian and
instead appointed a third party stranger. In reversing the trial court, the Appellate Division stated:
“The case law in this state firmly establishes that a stranger will not be appointed as guardian of an
incapacitated person “unless it is impossible to find within the family circle, or their nominees, one
who is qualified to serve”. [Note: calling this “nomination” may be a misnomer; See, MHL §81.17
(nomination is done by the AIP).]
Matter of Loccisano, 216 NYLJ 42 (1996); 1996 NY Misc. LEXIS 597 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk
Cty.)(Prudenti, J.)
Court allows AIP to select own guardian of person finding that person selected was suitable but
declines to appoint selected person as guardian of property finding certain improprieties in selected
person’s past behavior toward AIP’s funds.
131