MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

In the Matter of The Application of Joseph Meisels (Grand Rebbi Moses Teitelbaum); 10
Misc.3d 517; 820 N.Y.S. 2d 318 (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
important civil liberties protected by due process, that such process includes a plenary hearing with
counsel, application of the rules of evidence, the clear and convincing evidence standard, the
placement of the burden of proof on the petitioner and the right to a jury. Thus, the court stated: “
An Article 81 proceeding cannot be hard or determined other than by a New York State Court .”
st
In re New York Foundation (Schoon), 14 A.D.3d 317; 787 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1 Dept)
Appellate Division holds that it was not improper for trial court, without holding a hearing, to restore
powers back to an IP who was hostile and threatening toward the guardian making it impossible for
the guardian to fulfill its duties under the order without placing its caseworker at risk of harm.
Matter of Wynne, 11 A.D.3d 1014; 783 N.Y.S.2d 179 (4th Dept 2004)
“Mental Hygiene Law Sec 81.11 (a) requires a hearing to determine whether appointment of a
guardian is necessary (see, Matter of Flight,....) ...The determination who that guardians should be
is left to the discretion of the court.“
Matter of Anthon (Loconti), 11 A.D.3d 937; 783 N.Y.S.2d 168(4th Dept., 2004)
“The hearing requirement is not restricted to occasions when a guardian is to be imposed on a
possibly unwilling alleged incapacitated person) ... Rather, section 81.11(b) states clearly that “any
party” to an Article 81 proceeding shall have the right to present evidence, call witnesses, crossexamine
witnesses and be represented by counsel.”
st
In re Egglston (Wali Muhammed), 303 A.D.2d 263; 757 N.Y.S.2d 24 (1 Dept., 2003)
A hearing is required to dismiss or grant an Article 81 petition. It may be requested by any party. The
goal of narrow tailoring is enhanced by an evidentiary hearing. App. Div. reversed dismissal of an
Art 81 petition and remanded for hearing.
nd
Matter of Marvin W., 306 A.D.2d 289; 760 N.Y.S.2d 337 (2 Dept.)
App. Div. reverses order of Supreme Court that denied, without hearing, IP’s application to terminate
the guardianship. Court holds that MHL §81.36(c) requires that a hearing be held, that the burden
of proof is on the person opposing termination of the guardianship, and that the standard of proof
is clear and convincing evidence that the guardian’s authority should not be terminated.
204