MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

Matter of Naimoli (Rennhack), NYLJ, 9/8/97, p. 25, col. 4 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., 1997)
Where petitioner commenced Art. 81 proceeding as result of power struggle over control of mutual
relations estate, petitioner was held personally responsible for compensation of court examiner and
AIP’s counsel.
Matter of Hammons (Perreau), NYLJ, 7/7/95, p.29,col.3 (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty.)(Goodman, J.)
Where Court has “serious questions” about the “unfounded dramatic allegations in petition,” court
directs petitioner, Commissioner of Social Services, to pay compensation of MHLS, initially as
Court Evaluator and then as attorney.
Matter of Chackers (Shirley W.), 159 Misc.2d 912; 606 N.Y.S.2d 959 (Sup. Ct., NY Cty., 1993)
Where petition was brought in good faith but all parties ultimately agreed that discontinuance was
warranted and no guardian was needed, petitioner’s counsel’s fee was borne by petitioner not AIP.
While petitioner's attorney's fees may be borne by AIP if court "deems it appropriate," court did not
impose petitioner's counsel's fees on AIP here. Court finds fact that proceeding was brought in good
faith was alone insufficient to shift burden of paying for this proceeding to the AIP where no special
circumstance existed to warrant shifting burden of fee to AIP.
(iii) Payment of fees pursuant to County Law 18-B
Hirschfeld v. Horton, 88 AD3d 401, 929 N.Y.S.2d 599, 2011 N.y.App. Div. LEXIS 6353 (2 nd
Dept., Sept. 13, 2011)
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed an order of the Supreme Court, Queens
County, and granted the motion of the Assigned Counsel Plan (the panel empowered by the City of
New York to implement County Law article 18-B) for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that
the Assigned Counsel Plan is not obligated to compensate MHLS in situations where MHLS is
appointed as counsel to represent indigent AIPs in Article 81 proceedings, and where the court
awards counsel fees to MHLS pursuant to County Law art. 18-B. In so doing the Court held that
“there is no authority in Mental Hygiene Law article 81, the legislative history thereof, the case law,
or elsewhere”which would support MHLS’ position that it was entitled to such payment from the
City. The Appellate Division remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court for the entry of a related
judgment. MHLS’ motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied.
Matter of Lukia QQ., 27 A.D.3d 1021; 812 N.Y.S.2d 162 (3rd Dept. 2006)
Neither County Law §722-b nor anything in Article 81 requires that counsel to the AIP or the Court
Evaluator be paid at assigned counsel rates under County Law §722-b.
178