MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

Matter of Jayne Johnson, 172 Misc.2d 684; 658 N.Y.S.2d 780 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., 1997)
Marriage of 84-year-old incapacitated woman which occurred after commencement of Art. 81
proceeding but prior to appointment of guardian, is annulled by court hearing Art. 81 petition where
proof was sufficient to establish that on marriage day woman was incapacitated and incapable of
understanding nature, effect and consequences of marriage. Court bifurcated issues of marriage
dissolution and economic rights and heard only dissolution issue.
Matter of Kustka, 163 Misc.2d 694; 622 N.Y.S.2d 208 (Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., 1994)
81-year-old IP marries housekeeper three months after death of his wife. New wife begins depleting
IP’s bank account and sending money to her family abroad. Court appoints independent property
guardian after finding AIPs testimony on financial issues was confused but did not appoint personal
guardians and did not annul marriage.
Tabak v. Garay, NYLJ, 9/18/95, p. 25 (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty.)(Rigler, J.)
85-year-old man had married defendant, and shortly thereafter a court found him incapacitated. Eight
months after man died, his niece sought to annul the marriage. Court found this was matrimonial
action that could proceed under Domestic Relations Law §140(c). It disqualified defendant's
attorney because he had been appointed guardian for decedent and thus might be called as witness.
D. Use of AIP’s funds
Matter of M. H., 33 Misc.3d 1205A; 938 NYS2d 227 (Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., 2011)
The Supreme Court denied, without prejudice, a guardian’s motion for an order transferring the IP’s
life-estate interest in real property to the IP’s granddaughter, co-owner of the property, who had
already entered into a contract for its sale without the court’s permission, noting, inter alia, that the
guardian had not demonstrated that the transfer was appropriate, and further noting that the court
could permit the guardian to enter into a contract for the sale of the property without the need for a
transfer.
Matter of “Jane Doe,” An incapacitated person, 16 Misc. 3d 894; 842 N.Y.S. 2d 309 (Sup.
Ct., Kings County, 2007)(Leventhal, J.)
Court imposed constructive trust on funds that had been transferred to AIP’s spouse for Medicaid
planning purposes after spouse failed or refused to abide by plan to use the funds for the AIP’s
benefit and directed the bank holding the funds to transfer the funds from the IP’s spouse to the IP.
48