MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

in interest, his or her residence can not control the choice of venue.
Matter of Pulaski, NYLJ, 12/21/01 (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty.)(Leventhal, J.)
Parties to an Article 81 petition cross-filed Family Offense petitions in Family Court stemming from
an alleged assault of the AIP and her mother by the petitioner during a visit that had been ordered
by the Supreme Court in the Art. 81 proceeding. Supreme Court ordered that in the interests of
justice, the Family Offense petition be transferred to the Supreme Court. The Court reasoned that
it is a court of general jurisdiction with coordinate jurisdiction over Family Court matters, and that
it was most familiar with the circumstances of the case.
Turner v. Borobio, NYLJ, 12/24/01, p. 17 (SDNY Bankruptcy Court)
The AIP in this Art. 81 proceeding was also involved in a bankruptcy proceeding. He removed the
Art. 81 matter to bankruptcy court under 28 USC 1334 (b) claiming that the outcome of the
bankruptcy proceeding depended upon the outcome of the Article 81 proceeding. The petitioner in
the Art. 81 proceeding moved to have the Article 81 proceeding remanded back to State Supreme
Court. The Bankruptcy Court holds that the appointment of a guardian will not affect the AIPs rights
in the bankruptcy proceeding, and therefore, there is no federal jurisdiction over the Article 81
proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court therefore court grants the motion to remove the matter back to
State Supreme Court.
Matter of Francis Kleinman, NYLJ, 6/5/00, p.21,col. 3 (Sup.Ct., Nassau Cty.)(Rosetti, J.)
Removal of Art. 81 proceeding at accounting stage was transferred to Surrogate’s Court after death
of AIP because there was an interrelationship between the Art.81 and the probate proceeding.
Estate of Leon Lianides, NYLJ, Feb. 7, 2001, p. 21 (Surr. Ct., Bronx Cty.)(Surr. Holzman)
Surrogate Court administering estate of IP holds that it lacks the jurisdiction to determine claims by
decedent (IP) that prior to the IPs death, the guardian mismanaged the IPs affairs. Surrogate
transfers this issues to Supreme Court that appointed the guardian.
Matter of Burns (Salvo), 287 A.D.2d 862; 731 N.Y.S.2d 537 (3d Dept., 2001)
Death of IP during proceeding on petition by guardian to confirm charitable gift by IP did not deprive
Supreme Court of jurisdiction and transfer to Surrogates Court was not required.
st
Matter of Margaret Louise Beasley, 234 A.D.2d 32; 650 N.Y.S.2d 170 (1 Dept., 1996)
Where proposed ward has been institutionalized in facility located in Oswego County for more than
20 years, Surrogate's Court, New York County, properly rejected challenge to its jurisdiction on
ground that there was no showing that proposed ward ever had capacity to express an intention to
166