MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

Matter of Moulinos, 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2412; 241 N.Y.L.J. 60 (Sup. Ct. Queens Cty.)
(Thomas, J.)
The court declined to appoint a guardian for an elderly woman suffering from dementia where her
husband ,who held her Power of Attorney and Health Care Proxy, was providing proper care for her,
even though he was preventing her from m seeing her adult children.
Matter of Kurt T., 64 A.D.3d 819; 881 N.Y.S.2d 688 (3rd Dept 2009)
Appellate Division held that while it was undisputed that the AIP had functional limitations affecting
his ability to manage his finances, the record lacked clear and convincing evidence that he was likely
to suffer harm as a result of those limitations or that he was incapable of understanding and
appreciating his limitations. In fact, the record established that despite his diagnosis of Expressive
Aphasia and Dysarthria resulting from his stroke, he was aware of his assets, willing to seek the
assistance of an attorney in managing those assets and that he would not be harmed if guardians were
not appointed.
Matter of Kufeld, 23 Misc.3d 1131A; 889 N.Y.S. 2d 882(Sup. Ct.. Bronx Cty. 2009) (Roman,
J.)
Although petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the AIP was presently
incapacitated, the court declined to appoint a guardian because the AIP had executed sufficient
advanced directives when he was competent and there was no evidence of that the agent appointed
by those instruments had abused her authority.
Matter of May Far C., 61 A.D.3d 680; 877 N.Y.S.2d 367 (2nd Dept. 2009)
Order and Judgement of the trial court appointing a temporary guardian was reversed and remitted
upon a finding that the trial court had improvidently exercised its discretion in appointing a guardian.
The court held that the evidence adduced at the hearing had established that the AIP had effectuated
a plan for the management of her affairs and possessed sufficient resources to protect her well being,
thus obviating the need for a guardian. The Court further found that although the evidence
demonstrated that the AIP was incapacitated at the time of the hearing, there was no evidence that
she had been incapacitated when she granted her daughter Power of Attorney and further there was
no evidence that the chosen Attorney-in-Fact had engaged in any impropriety with respect to the care
of the AIP or her assets.
Matter of Eugenia M., 20 Misc.3d 1110A; 867 N.Y.S.2d 373 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2008) (Barros,
J.)
AIP was a 95 year old woman who lived alone. She performed her own shopping, cooking, banking,
and bill paying and used public transportation to come to the courthouse on her own. She was
slightly hard of hearing, had an unsteady gate which she compensated for by leaning on a shopping
31