MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

d
Matter of Marguerite VV, 226 A.D.2d 786; 640 N.Y.S2d 311 (3 Dept., 1996)
Guardianship with power to place AIP in nursing home granted. Bedridden AIP who required
24-hour-a-day supervision, was unable to ambulate, transfer self from bed to chair, or dress self as
a result of physical problems, and was incontinent and unable to keep herself clean, continually
refused medical tests and other forms of treatment. Necessary services to enable respondent to live
at home could not be provided because of AIP’s abusive behavior to home care workers and
respondent's refusal to retain a physician. Placement with respondent's family and friend was not
possible given lack of meaningful relationship between respondent and her family and frailty of her
only friend who could not adequately care for her.
nd
Matter of Maher, 207 A.D.2d 133, 621 N.Y.S.2d 617 (2 Dept., 1994)
No functional limitation found where AIP, who was himself an attorney, had become aphasic and
partially paralyzed as result of a stroke. Court finds clear and convincing evidence establishing that
AIP suffered from certain functional limitations in speaking and writing, but that he was not likely
to suffer harm because he was capable of adequately understanding and appreciating nature and
consequences of his disabilities as evidenced by his granting a power-of-attorney to colleague, and
by his adding his wife as a signatory on certain of his bank accounts.
Matter of Lambrigger, NYLJ, 5/31/94, p. 37, col. 1 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty.)(Luciano, J.)
Court denies petition for guardianship of AIP, who had suffered massive stroke that left her with
severe physical disabilities, holding that mental and physical disabilities are not co-extensive, noting
that AIP has not lost any cognitive abilities and is fully competent to make her own decisions,
including with matters such as property management. However, court did appoint special guardian
to help the AIP “manifest and give effect to her own decisions.” The special guardian was granted
no substituted judgment power and was not authorized to make any decision without consulting with
and explaining the transaction to AIP, who was to lose no rights to conduct her own affairs as a result
of the order.
In Re: DOE, 181 Misc.2d 787; 696 N.Y.S.2d 384 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., 1999)
Irresponsible and immature 18-year-old with short attention span and rebellious attitude, who abused
drugs and alcohol, and who had unrealistic sense of entitlement found not functionally limited within
meaning of Art. 81. Court holds Art. 81 is not a method for parents to extend their control over
rebellious children, nor is it to be used as estate planning tool by their parents seeking to divest
themselves of assets to avoid estate taxes.
nd
Matter of Ruth B. Ginsberg, 200 A.D.2d 571; 606 N.Y.S.2d 302 (2 Dept., 1994)
Conservator proper where elderly woman was mentally weak and susceptible to influence of others,
particularly her grandsons to whom she has given over $700,000 for “medical treatment.” Her
38