MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

spent.
K. Comparison to CPLR Art. 12 Infant Compromise
Alyssa H. v. Robinson's Ambulance & Oxygen Services, Inc., et al ., 34 Misc3d 1204A; 2011
N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6385 (Sup, Ct. Nassau Cty. 2011) (Asarch, J.)
A motion was brought by the parents of a 19 year old young woman who had funds being held in an
infant compromise CPLR Art 12 account resulting from a personal injury action. Under the terms
of this account the bank could release the funds to the young woman when she turned 18. The
parents sought to extend the period during which the funds would be inaccessible to their daughter
to age 25 because of concerns about her lack of maturity and behavior they believed would lead her
to squander the funds. The court denied the motion finding that it was an attempt to do an “end-run
around Mental Hygiene Law Article 81" that had the effect of depriving the young woman of the
protections of Article 81 and that absent a find under Art 81 that she lacked the capacity to mange
her funds, she was free to “use her funds as desired -- foolishly, capriciously, impulsively or
otherwise.” The court reasoned: “To use the context of a CPLR. Article 12 motion to, in effect, have
the bank serve as a de facto Guardian for the Property Management of an presumptively capable and
competent adult is not what the New York State Legislature envisioned and is not something that
this Court is inclined to do.” The court denied the motion but left in effect for a period of 15 days,
a TRO that had been previously issued upon the filing of the motion, which would have enabled the
movants to file an Article 81 petition.
Article, Compromise of Infant’s Cases, Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier, 2/2/2010, NYLJ
(col. 1)
Informative article comparing the relative advantages of using Art 81, Art SCPA 17-A and CPLR
Art 12 Infant Compromise addressing the degree of flexibility in investing and control over the
funds.
II. FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS/ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES/BEST
INTERESTS OF IP
Matter of Theresa I. (Antonio I.), Sup Ct, Westchester Cty, Unpublished Decision and Order,
Index # 14237/11 (Jan. 5, 20120) (Di Bella, J.)
Court dismisses proceedings upon finding the petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that her 78 year old father was unable to provide for the management of his property. In
so doing, the court noted that although the AIP may be “older, slower at understanding things and
stubborn,” “he continues to do what he has always done, or makes arrangements when he is unable
to do so.” The Court added that it appears that the petitioner’s concerns derive more from her
29