MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

Matter of Jospe (Grala), NYLJ, 1/30/95, p. 30, col. 2 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty.)(Luciano,J.)
Court granted hospital’s petition seeking appointment of guardian for elderly female AIP, who
suffered from dementia, memory loss, and cardiac problems. Court found that she required a
guardian because her “desire to return home without apparent regard for her inability to care for
herself demonstrates her lack of understanding and appreciation of her functional limitations... and
she will surely suffer harm.” Even if home health aides could be arranged, she could not safely
return home because she had no close family or other responsible person to serve as a back-up.
Noting that guardian could not be back-up, guardian was given the power to place her in a nursing
home but also given the responsibility to explore any alternative arrangements acceptable to social
services that would permit the AIP to safely reside in her home.
Matter of Hammons (Ehmke), 164 Misc.2d 609; 625 N.Y.S2.d 408 (Sup. Ct., Queens Cty.,
nd
1995); aff’d 237 A.D.2d 439 (2 Dept., 1997)
Court denies guardian authority to place AIPs in nursing home and instead orders guardian to
secure much needed assistance to enable AIPs to continue to live in own home.
B. Consent to psychiatric hospitalization and treatment
Matter of Gloria N., 55 A.D. 3d 309; 865 N.YS.2d 49 (1st Dept 2008)
Order was reversed where the guardian was empowered to cause the IP to be evaluated for admission
to a mental hygiene facility.
In the Matter of Rhodanna C.B., 36 A.D.3d 106; 823 N.Y.S.2d 497 (2nd Dept 2006)
Appointment of a guardian with the authority to consent in perpetuity to the administration of
psychotropic medication to the ward, over the ward’s objection and without any further judicial
review or approval, is inconsistent with the due process requirements of Rivers v. Katz,(67 N.Y.2d
485).
Matter of Hill, (unpublished), Sup. Ct. Orange County (DeRosa, J) Index# 2004-3317
Court denied application for guardianship where the primary purpose of the guardianship was to
compel involuntary psychiatric hospitalization and supervised living for a woman who was a
mentally ill drug addict who engaged in illegal activity. The Court found that the AIP had only SSI
for which the Dept of Social Services was already Representative Payee, the criminal and
correctional system would deal with her criminal behavior and the AIP’s psychiatric treatment needs
were governed by the provisions of the Mental Hygiene Law. The Court stated: To allow such
relief, a guardian would be given the power to determine a mentally ill substance abusers place of
42