Carolyn S. v. Gaylor

10 Citing cases

  1. In re Laurent G.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 4168 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    Laurent G. appeals. In order for a court to exercise its authority to appoint a property management guardian for an alleged incapacitated person, it must make a two-pronged determination (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a]; Matter of Carolyn S. [Gaylor], 192 A.D.3d 1114, 1115). First, the court must determine that "the appointment is necessary to... manage the property and financial affairs of that person" (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][1]).

  2. In re Nunziata

    74 Misc. 3d 255 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    In reaching its determination, the court shall give primary consideration to the functional level and functional limitations of the person (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[c] ). Significantly, any guardian appointed shall be granted ‘only those powers which are necessary to provide for personal needs and/or property management of the person in such a manner as appropriate to the individual and which shall constitute the least restrictive form of intervention’ ( Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][2] )" ( Matter of Aurelia S. , 186 A.D.3d 715, 716, 127 N.Y.S.3d 301 [2nd Dept. 2020] ; Matter of Carolyn S. (Gaylor), 192 A.D.3d 1114, 1115-1116, 141 N.Y.S.3d 358 [2nd Dept. 2021]).

  3. In re Maria Z.

    No. 2022-02554 (N.Y. App. Div. Apr. 20, 2022)

    Here, the hearing record established Maria Z.'s incapacity by clear and convincing evidence (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b]). Further, the evidence supported a finding that the appointment of a guardian was the least restrictive form of intervention necessary to provide for Maria Z.'s personal needs and to manage her property and financial affairs (see id. § 81.02[a]; Matter of Carolyn S. [Gaylor], 192 A.D.3d 1114, 1116; Matter of Harold W.S. [Mark P.-Lauralyn W.], 134 A.D.3d at 725; Matter of Barbara P. [Doar], 72 A.D.3d 827, 827). CONNOLLY, J.P., ROMAN, CHRISTOPHER and FORD, JJ., concur.

  4. Maria Z. v. Bonifacio Z.

    204 A.D.3d 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Further, the evidence supported a finding that the appointment of a guardian was the least restrictive form of intervention necessary to provide for Maria Z.’s personal needs and to manage her property and financial affairs (seeid. § 81.02[a] ; Matter of Carolyn S. [Gaylor], 192 A.D.3d 1114, 1116, 141 N.Y.S.3d 358 ; Matter of Harold W.S. [Mark P.—Lauralyn W.], 134 A.D.3d at 725, 22 N.Y.S.3d 73 ; Matter of Barbara P. [Doar], 72 A.D.3d 827, 827, 898 N.Y.S.2d 465 ). CONNOLLY, J.P., ROMAN, CHRISTOPHER and FORD, JJ., concur.

  5. In re Banks

    198 A.D.3d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lillian Wan, J.), entered on or about June 3, 2019, which, after a hearing, denied appellant's motion to terminate the guardianship of his personal needs and granted nonparty Selfhelp Community Services, Inc.’s (Selfhelp) cross motion, in effect, to re-adjudicate appellant to be an incapacitated person in need of a guardian to manage his property and be reappointed as the property management guardian, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the cross motion denied, and the matter remitted for further proceedings consistent herewith. On this record, Selfhelp failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellant remains incapacitated so as to require guardianship over his personal needs and property management (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.02, 81.36[d] ; Law Rev Commn Comments, reprinted in McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 34A, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36 ; Matter of Carolyn S. [Gaylor], 192 A.D.3d 1114, 1115–1116, 141 N.Y.S.3d 358 [2d Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Deborah P. [Marie F.], 133 A.D.3d 602, 603–604, 18 N.Y.S.3d 710 [2d Dept. 2015] ). Although Selfhelp made clear at the hearing that it does not believe that appellant can or will successfully defend himself in a pending landlord/tenant case, and may possibly face eviction as a result, "[a] precarious housing situation ... do[es] not, without more, constitute proof of incapacity such that a guardian is warranted ..." ( Matter of David C., 294 A.D.2d 433, 434, 742 N.Y.S.2d 336 [2d Dept. 2002] ; see generallyMatter of Grinker [Rose], 77 N.Y.2d 703, 570 N.Y.S.2d 448, 573 N.E.2d 536 [1991] ).

  6. In re Banks

    No. 2021-05284 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 5, 2021)

    or about June 3, 2019, which, after a hearing, denied appellant's motion to terminate the guardianship of his personal needs and granted nonparty Selfhelp Community Services, Inc.'s (Selfhelp) cross motion, in effect, to re-adjudicate appellant to be an incapacitated person in need of a guardian to manage his property and be reappointed as the property management guardian, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the cross motion denied, and the matter remitted for further proceedings consistent herewith. On this record, Selfhelp failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellant remains incapacitated so as to require guardianship over his personal needs and property management (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.02, 81.36[d]; Law Rev Commn Comments, reprinted in McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 34A, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36; Matter of Carolyn S. [Gaylor], 192 A.D.3d 1114, 1115-1116 [2d Dept 2021]; Matter of Deborah P. [Marie F.], 133 A.D.3d 602, 603-604 [2d Dept 2015]). Although Selfhelp made clear at the hearing that it does not believe that appellant can or will successfully defend himself in a pending landlord/tenant case, and may possibly face eviction as a result, "[a] precarious housing situation... do[es] not, without more, constitute proof of incapacity such that a guardian is warranted..." (Matter of David C., 294 A.D.2d 433, 434 [2d Dept 2002]; see generally Matter of Grinker [Rose], 77 N.Y.2d 703 [1991]).

  7. In re Corinne S.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51443 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)   1 Legal Analyses

    Prior to the commencement of the trial, this Court ordered that the trial would be conducted in four phases. At the conclusion of the first phase - whether a guardian should appointed for Steven S. - this Court orally found on the record that the petitioner and cross-petitioners Grace and Shelly established by clear and convincing evidence that (1) a guardian is necessary to provide for the personal needs, including food, clothing, shelter and health care, of Steven S., and manage his property and financial affairs; (2) Steven S. does not adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of his limited abilities, and if a guardian is not appointed for him, he is likely to suffer harm because he is unable to provide for both his personal and property management needs; and (3) Steven S. is an incapacitated person as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02 (see, Matter of Joan A.C. (Debra A.C.-Irene R.), 217 A.D.3d 941, 942; Matter of Carolyn S. (Gaylor), 192 A.D.3d 1114, 1115 ; Matter of Dorothy K.F. (Michael F.-Stephenie F.), 145 A.D.3d 887, 888 ; Matter of Loftman (Mae R.), 123 A.D.3d 1034, 1035-1036; Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.02 [a][1],[2],[b][1],[2] ). Before the next phase of the trial, Wysocki filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court in Newark, New Jersey, as a purported fifteen per cent owner of Arbah Corp., a bankruptcy petition on behalf of Arbah Corp.

  8. In re Maria Z.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 2554 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Here, the hearing record established Maria Z.'s incapacity by clear and convincing evidence (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b]). Further, the evidence supported a finding that the appointment of a guardian was the least restrictive form of intervention necessary to provide for Maria Z.'s personal needs and to manage her property and financial affairs (see id. § 81.02[a]; Matter of Carolyn S. [Gaylor], 192 A.D.3d 1114, 1116; Matter of Harold W.S. [Mark P.-Lauralyn W.], 134 A.D.3d at 725; Matter of Barbara P. [Doar], 72 A.D.3d 827, 827). CONNOLLY, J.P., ROMAN, CHRISTOPHER and FORD, JJ., concur.

  9. In re Greenfield

    75 Misc. 3d 244 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Initially, the Court must make a determination whether "the appointment is necessary to provide for the personal needs of [the AIP], including food, clothing, shelter, health care, or safety and/or to manage the property and financial affairs of [the AIP]" ( MHL § 81.02[a][1) ]). If the appointment of a guardian is deemed necessary, then the Court must decide whether the AIP "agrees to the appointment, or that the person is incapacitated" (Id. at § 81.02[a][2] ). A finding of incapacity requires "a determination that a person is likely to suffer harm because (1) the person is unable to provide for [his or her] personal needs and/or property management and (2) the person cannot adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of such inability" (Id. at § 81.02[b] ; seeMatter of Carolyn S ., 192 A.D.3d 1114, 141 N.Y.S.3d 358 (2d Dep't 2021) ; Matter of Carole L. , 136 A.D.3d 917, at 918-19, 26 N.Y.S.3d 133 (2d Dep't 2016) ). In reaching its determination, the Court notes that the burden of proof remains with the Petitioner by clear and convincing evidence.

  10. In re Banks

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 5284 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    or about June 3, 2019, which, after a hearing, denied appellant's motion to terminate the guardianship of his personal needs and granted nonparty Selfhelp Community Services, Inc.'s (Selfhelp) cross motion, in effect, to re-adjudicate appellant to be an incapacitated person in need of a guardian to manage his property and be reappointed as the property management guardian, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the cross motion denied, and the matter remitted for further proceedings consistent herewith. On this record, Selfhelp failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellant remains incapacitated so as to require guardianship over his personal needs and property management (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.02, 81.36[d]; Law Rev Commn Comments, reprinted in McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 34A, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36; Matter of Carolyn S. [Gaylor], 192 A.D.3d 1114, 1115-1116 [2d Dept 2021]; Matter of Deborah P. [Marie F.], 133 A.D.3d 602, 603-604 [2d Dept 2015]). Although Selfhelp made clear at the hearing that it does not believe that appellant can or will successfully defend himself in a pending landlord/tenant case, and may possibly face eviction as a result, "[a] precarious housing situation... do[es] not, without more, constitute proof of incapacity such that a guardian is warranted..." (Matter of David C., 294 A.D.2d 433, 434 [2d Dept 2002]; see generally Matter of Grinker [Rose], 77 N.Y.2d 703 [1991]).