In re Marilyn A.I.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Marilyn A.I.

106 A.D.3d 821, 964 N.Y.S.2d 640

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

DecidedMay 8, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 821 (In re Marilyn A.I.) 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 Marilyn A.I., 106 A.D.3d 821, 964 N.Y.S.2d 640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian for the personal needs and property management of Marilyn A.I., an alleged incapacitated person, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, [822]*822from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Asarch, J.), dated March 7, 2012, as, after a hearing, failed to appoint her as a co-guardian of the person of Marilyn A.I. together with George E Esernio, Esq.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In selecting a guardian for an incapacitated person, the primary concern is for the best interests of the incapacitated person (see Matter of Von Bulow, 63 NY2d 221, 224 [1984]; Matter of Rudick, 278 AD2d 328, 329 [2000]). In the instant case, the record plainly indicates that a strong dissension existed between Marilyn A.I., the incapacitated person, and the petitioner, who is her daughter. Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to appoint the petitioner as a co-guardian of the person of Marilyn A.I. (see Matter of Ollie D., 30 AD3d 599, 600 [2006]; Matter of West, 13 AD2d 599, 600 [1961]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Eng, EJ., Rivera, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian for the personal needs and property management of Marilyn A.I., an alleged incapacitated person, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, [822]*822from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Asarch, J.), dated March 7, 2012, as, after a hearing, failed to appoint her as a co-guardian of the person of Marilyn A.I. together with George E Esernio, Esq.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In selecting a guardian for an incapacitated person, the primary concern is for the best interests of the incapacitated person (see Matter of Von Bulow, 63 NY2d 221, 224 [1984]; Matter of Rudick, 278 AD2d 328, 329 [2000]). In the instant case, the record plainly indicates that a strong dissension existed between Marilyn A.I., the incapacitated person, and the petitioner, who is her daughter. Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to appoint the petitioner as a co-guardian of the person of Marilyn A.I. (see Matter of Ollie D., 30 AD3d 599, 600 [2006]; Matter of West, 13 AD2d 599, 600 [1961]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Eng, EJ., Rivera, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 821, 964 N.Y.S.2d 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marilyn-ai-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack