In re John L.P.

72 A.D.3d 828, 898 N.Y.S.2d 465
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 13, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 828 (In re John L.P.) 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 John L.P., 72 A.D.3d 828, 898 N.Y.S.2d 465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

— In a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, the former'interim successor guardian, Emani P Taylor, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated July 28, 2008, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 30, 2008, made after a hearing, awarding the estate of John L.P, the incapacitated person, a money judgment, against her, is in favor of the estate of John L.P. and against her in the principal sum of $403,148.86.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the request of the appellant, a recently suspended attorney, for an adjournment to obtain new counsel where the appellant consented to the withdrawal of her attorney at the commencement of the hearing (see Hendry v Hilton, 283 App Div 168, 171 [1953]). Moreover, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the interim stay provision in CPLR 321 (c) is inapplicable in cases such as this, where an attorney’s removal is caused by the voluntary act of both the attorney and the client (see Hendry v Hilton, 283 App Div 168 [1953]).

In addition, the appellant’s contention that the Supreme Court violated CPLR 321 (a) by forcing her Professional Corporations to proceed pro se also lacks merit. The hearing at issue concerned only the appellant’s misappropriation of funds, and the Professional Corporations were not parties to the proceeding (see CPLR 321 [c]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Sgroi, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 20 Misc 3d 1111(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51316(U).]

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

Related

Turco v. Turco
117 A.D.3d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 A.D.3d 828, 898 N.Y.S.2d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-john-lp-nyappdiv-2010.