In re Ollie D.

30 A.D.3d 599, 817 N.Y.S.2d 142
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 20, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 599 (In re Ollie D.) 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 Ollie D., 30 A.D.3d 599, 817 N.Y.S.2d 142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In a proceeding, inter alia, for a guardianship pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated November 23, 2004, as, after a hearing, denied that branch of his petition which was to be appointed as guardian of the person and property of his mother, an incapacitated person, and instead appointed a neutral third party as guardian, and ratified a certain [600]*600mortgage taken by the incapacitated person and held by Delta Funding.

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

Although the Supreme Court made the appropriate findings of fact pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.15 concerning, inter alia, the necessity for the appointment of a guardian, it failed to make sufficient findings on the record with respect to its determination to appoint a neutral third-party guardian (see Matter of Pasner, 215 AD2d 763 [1995]). “However, when the record on appeal permits the reviewing court to make the findings which the trial court neglected to make, it may do so” (Matter of Mildred Jeraldine C., 14 AD3d 560, 561 [2005] [citations omitted]). In the instant case, the record is sufficient for this Court to make the requisite finding that bitter dissension between the incapacitated person’s family members justified the appointment of a neutral third-party guardian (see Matter of Wynn, 11 AD3d 1014, 1015-1016 [2004]; cf. Matter of Weisman, 112 AD2d 871, 872-873 [1985]; Matter of Lyon, 52 AD2d 847 [1976], affd 41 NY2d 1056 [1977]).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.E, Santucci, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Corinne S. (Steven S.)
2023 NY Slip Op 51443 (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2023)
Matter of Joan A. C. (Debra A. C.--Irene R.)
217 A.D.3d 941 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Dorothy K.F. (Michael F.)
2016 NY Slip Op 8518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Beatrice R. H. (Dean E. H.--Penny F. H.)
131 A.D.3d 1058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Loftman (Mae R.)
123 A.D.3d 1034 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Karen H.M.
45 Misc. 3d 858 (New York Supreme Court, 2014)
Conservatorship of Willett CA4/1
California Court of Appeal, 2013
In re Marilyn A.I.
106 A.D.3d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.3d 599, 817 N.Y.S.2d 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ollie-d-nyappdiv-2006.