In re Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Goldstein

99 A.D.3d 1233, 951 N.Y.2d 443

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

DecidedOctober 5, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 1233 (In re Goldstein) 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 Goldstein, 99 A.D.3d 1233, 951 N.Y.2d 443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Petitioner, a hospital administrator, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 seeking a determination that respondent, Jean C., is an incapacitated person and seeking the appointment of a guardian for her person and property. Supreme Court granted the petition and appointed respondent’s stepdaughter as guardian. The court included a provision in the order and judgment limiting the guardian’s authority to make end of life decisions with respect to the withholding or withdrawal of artificial administration of nutrition or hydration. On appeal, petitioner contends that the limitation on the guardian’s health care decision-making author[1234]*1234ity violated the Family Health Care Decisions Act (Public Health Law art 29-CC). Neither the guardian nor respondent appeal. We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed because petitioner is not aggrieved by the order and judgment (see Gordon v LIN TV Corp., 89 AD3d 1459 [2011]). PresentCentra, J.P, Peradotto, Garni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner, a hospital administrator, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 seeking a determination that respondent, Jean C., is an incapacitated person and seeking the appointment of a guardian for her person and property. Supreme Court granted the petition and appointed respondent’s stepdaughter as guardian. The court included a provision in the order and judgment limiting the guardian’s authority to make end of life decisions with respect to the withholding or withdrawal of artificial administration of nutrition or hydration. On appeal, petitioner contends that the limitation on the guardian’s health care decision-making author[1234]*1234ity violated the Family Health Care Decisions Act (Public Health Law art 29-CC). Neither the guardian nor respondent appeal. We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed because petitioner is not aggrieved by the order and judgment (see Gordon v LIN TV Corp., 89 AD3d 1459 [2011]). PresentCentra, J.P, Peradotto, Garni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 1233, 951 N.Y.2d 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-goldstein-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack