MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

I. Collections Matters
Matter of G. S., 17 Misc.3d 303; 841 N.Y.S. 2d 428 (Sup. Ct., New York County 2007) (Hunter,
J.)
Proceeding was brought by nursing home because AIP’s son and attorney-in-fact had paid only a
portion of the outstanding nursing home bill from the proceeds of the sale of the AIP’s home. The
nursing home’s theory was that the power of attorney should be voided because the son was
breaching his fiduciary duty. The Court held that he had established that he had used his mother’s
funds responsibly and soley for her benefit and stated “The purpose for which this guardianship
proceeding was brought, to wit, for the nursing home to be paid for its care of [the AIP], was not the
legislature’s intended purpose when Article 81 of the MHL was enacted in 1993.” The fees of the
court evaluator and petitioner’s counsel were assessed against the petitioner nursing home.
Matter of S.K., 13 Misc.3d 1045; 827 N.Y.S.2d 554 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty., 2006) (Hunter, J.)
AIP had functional limitations but also had sufficient and valid advanced directives in place as
alternative resources. The nursing home where the AIP resided brought an Article 81 proceeding
solely for the purpose of collecting it’s bill because the AIP’s wife, who held the POA, was not
paying because she believed the Long Term Care policy should payout. The Court stated: “The
purpose for which this guardianship proceeding was brought, to wit, for the nursing home to
be paid for its care of the [AIP] was not the Legislature‘s intended purpose when Article 81
of the MHL was enacted in 1993.” The Court imposed all costs of the proceeding upon the
petitioner.
J. Assisted Outpatient Treatment (Kendra’s Law)
31175 LLC v. Shapiro, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 7513; 241 NYLJ 11 (Sup. Ct. NY Cty.)
(Schneider, J.)
In a nuisance holdover proceeding involving a mentally and physically disabled 71 year old man, the
court dismissed the co-op’s petition because it found that the evidence established that respondent
had a diligent guardian who was attentive to his needs and circumstances and who has responded
responsibly to the complaints and concerns of the coop. Respondent was also now subject to an
Assisted Outpatient Treatment order and was under considerable supervision.
Matter of William C., 64 A.D.3d 277; 880 N.Y.S.2d 317 (2nd Dept. 2009)
The Appellate Division held that an Assisted Outpatient Treatment order (AOT) may properly
provide for money management. The Court’s reasoning included the rationale that MHL Art 81 is
not the exclusive remedy for money management and actually, for someone who has not been
declared incapacitated, an AOT order allows him to have greater input into how his money will be
28