In re Palmiere

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Palmiere

284 A.D.2d 965, 726 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5792

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

DecidedJune 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 965 (In re Palmiere) 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 Palmiere, 284 A.D.2d 965, 726 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem for a grandson, who was injured at the home of his aunt and uncle when he was six years old. Petitioner contends that there is a conflict of interest between the child and his parents, who have refused to commence a personal injury action against family members on the child’s behalf. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition. By enacting CPLR 1201, the Legislature has “demonstrated a preference for natural guardians” (Stahl v Rhee, 220 AD2d 39, 44), and “[i]t is the policy of this State to encourage parents to act as guardians, thereby avoiding unnecessary appointments and the expense of a guardian ad litem” (Matter [966]*966of Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 83 AD2d 808). Where, as here, “reasonable minds may legitimately differ, the judgment of the infant’s natural guardian [s] should prevail” (Stahl v Rhee, supra, at 46). Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the decision of the child’s parents not to commence an action against family members was “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious” (Stahl v Rhee, supra, at 46). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J. — Guardian ad Litem.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem for a grandson, who was injured at the home of his aunt and uncle when he was six years old. Petitioner contends that there is a conflict of interest between the child and his parents, who have refused to commence a personal injury action against family members on the child’s behalf. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition. By enacting CPLR 1201, the Legislature has “demonstrated a preference for natural guardians” (Stahl v Rhee, 220 AD2d 39, 44), and “[i]t is the policy of this State to encourage parents to act as guardians, thereby avoiding unnecessary appointments and the expense of a guardian ad litem” (Matter [966]*966of Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 83 AD2d 808). Where, as here, “reasonable minds may legitimately differ, the judgment of the infant’s natural guardian [s] should prevail” (Stahl v Rhee, supra, at 46). Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the decision of the child’s parents not to commence an action against family members was “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious” (Stahl v Rhee, supra, at 46). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J. — Guardian ad Litem.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 965, 726 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-palmiere-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack