MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

just cause for removal of a guardian as being in the best interests of the ward. Although the guardian
was attentive to his ward's physical needs and kept adequate account of the financial matters, there
was evidence on the record that the guardian had used his powers to treat his ward in ways that were
demeaning, belittling and condescending and that ward was uncomfortable interacting with him.
Matter of Pryce, 2008 Misc. LEXIS 7504; 241 NYLJ 3 (Sup. Ct., Queens Cty, 2008) (Thomas,
J.)
Court denied motion by IP's mother, the natural guardian of the person of her minor daughter, to
have the independent financial co-guardian removed. The only basis for removal that she advanced
was that after the mother had misappropriated funds belonging to her daughter, and after the
financial co-guardian had reported this to the court and taken other steps to protect the wards
remaining assets, that the guardian had not assisted the mother to track down the risky investments
she had made.
Matter of Mary Alice C., 56 A.D.3d 467; 867 N.Y.S.2d 138 (2nd Dept., 2008)
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s refusal to remove a special guardian., noting that
although a guardian may be removed for failure to comply with an order, misconduct or for any other
cause which to the court shall appear just (MHL 81.35), in this case, there was no more than
conclusory allegations of misconduct to provide a basis for the guardian’s removal.
Matter of Lillian A. (Wells), 56 A.D.3d 767; 2008 N.Y. App. Div LEXIS 9035 (2nd Dept 2008)
A single individual served as both temporary guardian and as the attorney for the IP during the same
period, which period ended when she was discharged as temporary guardian. The individual
submitted affirmations to the court seeking reimbursement for the legal as well as non-legal services
she performed. After her appointment as temporary guardian ended, and even after the IP died, the
individual continued to disburse funds from the Guardianship account to herself and others. The trial
court directed the appellant to return to the estate the funds that had been disbursed without
authorization after her appointment had terminated. Because she had failed to properly exercise her
role as temporary guardian the court denied her request to be compensated for her role as Temporary
Guardian, although it did pay part of her fee for the legal services rendered. Appellate Division
affirmed.
Matter of Phillips, 20 Misc. 3d 1111A; 2008 NY Slip Op 51316U (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., 2008)
(Ambrosio, J.)
The guardian was an attorney who had been suspended from the practice of law as a result of her
breach of fiduciary duty to the IP in this matter. She was deemed to have breached her fiduciary duty
by, inter alia: (1) paying herself substantial counsel fees that were not court ordered and to which
she was not entitled; (2) paying herself a substantial "brokers commission" that was not court ordered
and which actually related to an auction of the IP’s real estate conducted by the court; (3) dissipating
137