In re Mary S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Mary S.

234 A.D.2d 300, 651 N.Y.S.2d 81

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 300 (In re Mary S.) 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 Mary S., 234 A.D.2d 300, 651 N.Y.S.2d 81 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian for the person and property of Mary S., an alleged incapacitated person, Mary S. appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated [301]*301February 16, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the petition and appointed a guardian for her person and property.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant is an 82-year-old woman allegedly suffering from dementia. This proceeding was commenced by one of the appellant’s daughters seeking the appointment of a guardian for the appellant’s person and property. Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the court had jurisdiction over this proceeding (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.04 [a] [2]; Law Revision Commission Comments following Mental Hygiene Law § 81.04, reprinted in McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 34A, at 272; Matter of Paddock, 204 NY 640). Although the appellant is currently living in Maryland with another daughter, she has personal connections and property in this State. Furthermore, the guardian appointed by the court was given only those powers which were necessary for him to provide for the appellant’s personal needs and property management, which constituted the least restrictive form of intervention (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02 [a] [2]). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Thompson, 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 person and property of Mary S., an alleged incapacitated person, Mary S. appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated [301]*301February 16, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the petition and appointed a guardian for her person and property.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant is an 82-year-old woman allegedly suffering from dementia. This proceeding was commenced by one of the appellant’s daughters seeking the appointment of a guardian for the appellant’s person and property. Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the court had jurisdiction over this proceeding (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.04 [a] [2]; Law Revision Commission Comments following Mental Hygiene Law § 81.04, reprinted in McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 34A, at 272; Matter of Paddock, 204 NY 640). Although the appellant is currently living in Maryland with another daughter, she has personal connections and property in this State. Furthermore, the guardian appointed by the court was given only those powers which were necessary for him to provide for the appellant’s personal needs and property management, which constituted the least restrictive form of intervention (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02 [a] [2]). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 300, 651 N.Y.S.2d 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mary-s-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack