Opinion
February 1, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cerrato, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We reject the appellants' contention that the court of first instance abused its discretion in appointing the petitioner Franzetti as a coconservator. While Franzetti's multiple role as coconservator and as a cotrustee and contingent remainderman of a trust, the income of which is payable to the conservatee, raises a potential conflict of interest (see generally, Matter of Silber, 104 Misc.2d 574; Matter of Gorman, 77 Misc.2d 564), we find that the court adequately safeguarded against any possible abuse of the fiduciary relationship by appointing a coconservator and by imposing reporting requirements upon both conservators. Similarly, the mere fact that the petitioner is not related to the conservatee does not preclude his appointment as a coconservator, for the record demonstrates that he is the most capable and willing individual to serve in that capacity, while the relatives of the conservatee have demonstrated little planning and even less concern for the welfare of the conservatee (see, e.g., Matter of Judas, 74 A.D.2d 874; Matter of Lyon, 52 A.D.2d 847, affd 41 N.Y.2d 1056; see generally, Matter of Weisman, 112 A.D.2d 871). Under these circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be characterized as an abuse of discretion.
The appellants' claims regarding the award of counsel fees and the provision for compensation of the coconservators are without merit (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 77.07 [d]; § 77.27; see, e.g., Matter of Noel, 92 A.D.2d 1053). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.