In re Adam J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Adam J.

89 A.D.3d 943, 932 N.Y.2d 710

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 943 (In re Adam J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Adam J., 89 A.D.3d 943, 932 N.Y.2d 710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[944]*944The petitioner demonstrated that the appointment of a guardian for Adam J., the alleged incapacitated person, was necessary to provide for his personal needs and to manage his property and financial affairs (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02 [a] [1]). The petitioner further established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Adam J. was likely to suffer harm because he was unable to provide for his personal needs and property management, and to adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of such inability (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02 [a] [2]; [b]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly appointed Adam’s mother and sister Rita as coguardians of his property and his two sisters as co-guardians of his personal needs (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02 [b]). Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[944]*944The petitioner demonstrated that the appointment of a guardian for Adam J., the alleged incapacitated person, was necessary to provide for his personal needs and to manage his property and financial affairs (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02 [a] [1]). The petitioner further established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Adam J. was likely to suffer harm because he was unable to provide for his personal needs and property management, and to adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of such inability (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02 [a] [2]; [b]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly appointed Adam’s mother and sister Rita as coguardians of his property and his two sisters as co-guardians of his personal needs (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02 [b]). Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 943, 932 N.Y.2d 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-adam-j-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack