The parties’ remaining contentions, to the extent that they are properly before us and not addressed expressly herein, have been evaluated and determined to be without merit. We are aware that the Court of Appeals has granted leave to appeal in Columbia Mem. Hosp. and Schoch, but a change in law at some unknowable point in the future, something that is certainly always a possibility, does not warrant a different conclusion as to aggreviablity, as respondent may urge (seePorco v. Lifetime Entertainment Servs., LLC, 176 A.D.3d 1274, 1276, 109 N.Y.S.3d 516 [2019] ; Hermitage Ins. Co. v. 186–190 Lenox Rd., LLC, 142 A.D.3d 422, 424, 36 N.Y.S.3d 634 [2016] ; Matter of American Univ. of Antigua v. CGFNS Intl., 126 A.D.3d 1146, 1150, 4 N.Y.S.3d 736 [2015] ; Matter ofLandis [Debora], 114 A.D.3d 458, 459, 979 N.Y.S.2d 577 [2014] ; Matter of Battisti, 112 A.D.2d 635, 636, 492 N.Y.S.2d 155 [1985], appeal dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 674, 499 N.Y.S.2d 683, 490 N.E.2d 550 [1986] ). Egan Jr., J.P., Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ., concur.
It has been held, moreover, that the conservator's powers with respect to property are similar to those vested in a committee of the property of an incompetent (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 77.19; see also, 1966 Report of N.Y. Law Rev Commn, at 331). "These include a duty to secure `the special direction of the court * * * as prescribed in the real property actions and proceedings law' before disposing of any of the conservatee's real property" (Matter of Battisti, 112 A.D.2d 635, appeal dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 674, quoting from Mental Hygiene Law § 78.15 [d]; see also, Mental Hygiene Law § 77.25 [c]; Matter of Kurnyk, 109 Misc.2d 1019). Although the appointment of a conservator need not necessarily entail a finding of incompetency on the part of the conservatee (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 77.25), the unavoidable limitations upon the conservatee's autonomy, as a result of the appointment, may "only be justified if the State, acting through the court, assures the ward's best interests [are] protected, and if the conservator exercises his substituted judgment accordingly" (Matter of Scrivani, 116 Misc.2d 204, 207).
We are aware that the Court of Appeals has granted leave to appeal in Columbia Mem. Hosp. and Schoch, but a change in law at some unknowable point in the future, something that is certainly always a possibility, does not warrant a different conclusion as to aggreviablity, as respondent may urge (see Porco v Lifetime Entertainment Servs., LLC, 176 A.D.3d 1274, 1276 [2019]; Hermitage Ins. Co. v 186-190 Lenox Rd., LLC, 142 A.D.3d 422, 424 [2016]; Matter of American Univ. of Antigua v CGFNS Intl., 126 A.D.3d 1146, 1150 [2015]; Matter of Landis [Debora], 114 A.D.3d 458, 459 [2014]; Matter of Battisti, 112 A.D.2d 635, 636 [1985], appeal dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 674 [1986]). Egan Jr., J.P., Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ., concur.