Opinion
11673 Index 500055/19
06-18-2020
In re AHDAWANTAZALAM A., etc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. GEORGILIA A., Defendant–Respondent.
Ahdawantazalam A., appellant pro se. McCarthy Fingar LLP, White Plains (Michael S. Kutzin of counsel), for respondent.
Ahdawantazalam A., appellant pro se.
McCarthy Fingar LLP, White Plains (Michael S. Kutzin of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kern, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered August 8, 2019, which, after a hearing, denied the petition to appoint plaintiff Ahdawantazalam A. as guardian, and granted the cross-petition and appointed defendant Georgilia A. as guardian, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In appointing a guardian, the primary concern is for the best interests of the incapacitated person, based on the facts. The determination is within the court's discretion and wide latitude is given (see Matter of Von Bulow, 63 N.Y.2d 221, 224, 481 N.Y.S.2d 67, 470 N.E.2d 866 [1984] ). The parties, who divorced in 2014, agree that their daughter, an adult with multiple disabilities, needs a guardian. They each seek to serve in that capacity.
The court providently exercised its discretion in appointing defendant mother as Janisa's guardian, in view of the evidence that she had been diligently caring for Janisa for years and appropriately attended to her needs, and the absence of any evidence supporting plaintiff's claims of improper medical treatment (see Matter of Gustafson, 308 A.D.2d 305, 308, 764 N.Y.S.2d 46 [1st Dept. 2003] ). Moreover, similar claims by plaintiff had been rejected by the Family Court in an earlier custody proceeding in which defendant was awarded custody of Janisa. On the other hand, plaintiff had no experience caring for Janisa on his own.
Plaintiff asserts that the court should have permitted him to have Janisa, an adult, evaluated by an independent physician. However, he had no right to this relief, which was within the purview of the court evaluator ( Mental Hygiene Law § 81.09[c][7] ), who declined to seek additional medical advice.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.