MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

Matter of S.A.W., June 5, 2007, NYLJ p. 23, col. 3(Sup. Ct., Rockland Cty.)(Weiner,
J.)
Motion for a change of venue for a contested final accounting proceeding from the county where the
AIP was in a rehab center at the start of the case to the county where the AIP was then residing 6
years later at the time of the motion was denied by the court stating that more is needed than the
mere allegation that there is no longer a nexus with the original county where the court suspected
that the motion was possibly forum shopping and the first court was familiar with the 6 year history
of the case.
Matter of J.S.W., 15 Misc.3d 1118A; 839 N.Y.S.2d 437 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. 2007)(Hunter, J.)
Where the divorce proceeding was pending in Suffolk County and the Article 81 proceeding was
pending in the Bronx, it was unnecessary for the attorney for the guardians to seek approval of the
Suffolk divorce settlement from the court presiding over the Article 81 proceeding in the Bronx.
nd
In the Matter of Loretta I., 34 A.D.3d 480, 824 N.Y.S.2d 372 (2 Dept 2006); In the Matter of
nd
Johanna C., 34 A.D.3d 465; 824 N.Y.S.2d 142(2 Dept 2006); and In the Matter of Annette I.,
nd
34 A.D.3d 479; 823 N.Y.S 2d 542 (2 Dept 2006)
In a guardianship proceeding brought on because 3 allegedly incapacitated persons had allegedly
been taken advantage of by a third party and, inter alia, coerced into signing away the deed to their
home, the third party was neither named nor given notice that the court could ultimately divest her
of her title to the property. Title was held by two of the AIPs and the third AIP was the child and
natural heir of one of them. The Appellate Division did order that title revert back and the third party
appealed on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over her to so divest her of title. With
respect to the appeals in the matter involving the 2 AIP’s who were title holders, the Appellate
Division reversed that portion of the order noting that the transactions in question were not made by
persons who were yet adjudicated incompetent and for whom a guardian had already been appointed
but, rather, by persons who were unable to understand the nature and consequences of their actions,
rendering the transactions voidable but not void and concluded that granting the guardians authority
to commence a turnover proceeding against the third party rather than deeming the transactions void,
and enjoining any further transfer of the subject real property pending the turnover proceeding was
a more appropriate course of action. In the appeal involving the child and natural heir of the title
holders, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the non-title holding child was not aggrieved.
In the Matter of The Application of Joseph Meisels (Grand Rebbi Moses Teitelbaum), 10
Misc.3d 659; 807 N.Y.S. 2d 268 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty., 2005) (Leventhal, J.)
An Article 81 petition was brought for guardianship over the Grand Rabbi of The Satmar sect. The
parties wanted to bring the proceeding in the Bet Din religious tribunal but could not agree on which
one so the petitioner ultimately filed in State Supreme Court. The court noted that the matter could
not have been held in the Bet Din, which would have been akin to submitting it to arbitration because
the case involved the capacity of an individual and not a religious matter; guardianship involves
164