In re Harney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Harney

248 A.D.2d 182, 670 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2400

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 182 (In re Harney) 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 Harney, 248 A.D.2d 182, 670 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered on or about September 16, 1996, which, after a hearing, adjudged appellant an incapacitated person under article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, and appointed a Guardian of the Person and a Guardian of the Property of appellant, with related relief, and order, same court and Justice, entered May 22, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied appellant’s motion to vacate the order and judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The 1996 order and judgment was a proper exercise of discretion in view of the evidence clearly indicating that appellant could not attend to his daily needs alone and was uncooperative and abusive with home care workers (see, Matter of Harriet R., 224 AD2d 625; Matter of Claiman, 169 Misc 2d 881, 885). Under the circumstances of this case, where both the personal guardian and the property guardian were discharged after a second hearing, we find that appellant was not prejudiced by failure, if any, of the hearing court to comply fully with Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11 (e). We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

[As amended by unpublished order entered May 7, 1998.]

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered on or about September 16, 1996, which, after a hearing, adjudged appellant an incapacitated person under article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, and appointed a Guardian of the Person and a Guardian of the Property of appellant, with related relief, and order, same court and Justice, entered May 22, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied appellant’s motion to vacate the order and judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The 1996 order and judgment was a proper exercise of discretion in view of the evidence clearly indicating that appellant could not attend to his daily needs alone and was uncooperative and abusive with home care workers (see, Matter of Harriet R., 224 AD2d 625; Matter of Claiman, 169 Misc 2d 881, 885). Under the circumstances of this case, where both the personal guardian and the property guardian were discharged after a second hearing, we find that appellant was not prejudiced by failure, if any, of the hearing court to comply fully with Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11 (e). We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

[As amended by unpublished order entered May 7, 1998.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 182, 670 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-harney-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack