MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

photocopying, fax transmissions, local travel expenses, United Clerical Service, and telephone
charges. Court found that evidence of misconduct did not rise to level necessary to warrant
guardian’s removal. However, disbursements for which guardian reimbursed herself were
disallowed. Reimbursements questioned were characterized by court as routine, incidental costs
incurred by guardian, which were expected to be absorbed in guardian’s statutory commission.
Court noted that statutory references to “reasonable and necessary expenses” had not been construed
to encompass general administrative fees incurred by guardian, but rather pertained to actual
expenditures made by guardian, which were necessary to collect, preserve, and distribute estate
property.
Matter of Maria Cedano, 171 Misc.2d 689; 655 N.Y.S.2d 283 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., 1997), 251
st
A.D.2d 105, reversed, 674 N.Y.S.2d 34 (1 Dept.,1998)
Where JASA had served as Conservator (pre–Art 81) for a ward under the Soc Serv Law 473-c
Community Guardianship Program and the ward was later admitted to a nursing home and removed
from the community, Soc Serv Law 473- prohibited JASA from continuing to serve as guardian,
even for a brief period until another guardian could be found. Trial court’s order compelling JASA
to remain as guardian was reversed on appeal.
Matter of Heagney, NYLJ, 4/24/00, p. 37, col. 5 (Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty.)(Friedman, JHO)
Court found that although guardian did not violate fiduciary duties towards IP because of
"negligence and sloppiness" in not filing required designations and in not filing annual reports, no
fee was to be awarded.
Matter of Nicks, NYLJ, 1/29/98, p. 25, col. 1 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.)(Rossetti, J.)
Where guardian was removed for failure to carry out duties properly, guardian’s fees for past service
were denied.
Matter of Skinner (Lyles), 171 Misc.2d 551; 655 N.Y.S.2d 311 (Sup. Ct., NY Cty., 1997), aff’d
st
in part, rev’d in part, 250 A.D.2d 488; 673 N.Y.S.2d 122 (1 Dept., 1998)
Court may not direct petitioner hospital to pay indigent IP’s guardian’s fee.
J. Co-Guardians
Matter of Margaret S., 236 NYLJ 9; 2006 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2833 (Sup. Ct., Richmond
Cty.)(Giacobbe, J.)
Where there was acrimony between an AIP’s son and daughter, both of whom were loving adult
children capable of acting as guardian, the court, finding that it would be in the best interest of the
AIP to have both of her children involved, appointed the daughter as guardian of the property along
151