In re Rudick

278 A.D.2d 328, 718 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12895
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 11, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 328 (In re Rudick) 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 Rudick, 278 A.D.2d 328, 718 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

In a [329]*329proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, Samuel Rudick appeals (1) from a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kasoff, J.), dated June 24, 1998, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the same court, dated July 6, 1998, as appointed Sandra Rosenthal Blair the sole guardian of the person and property of Esther Rudick, an incapacitated person.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

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

The Supreme Court appointed Sandra Rosenthal Blair as sole guardian for the personal needs and property of her mother, Esther Rudick, an incapacitated person, following a hearing on the petition brought by her son, the appellant Samuel Rudick (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.19 [d]). The primary concern is for the best interests of the incapacitated person (see, Matter of Von Bulow, 63 NY2d 221, 224). The appellant contends that family conflicts require the appointment of an independent person as guardian. The Supreme Court, however, providently exercised its discretion in appointing Sandra Rosenthal Blair as guardian based on the evidence regarding the quality of care she provided to her mother (see, Matter of Robinson, 272 AD2d 176; Matter of Chase, 264 AD2d 330; Matter of Steinberg, 121 AD2d 872). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re Wellie L. C.
65 A.D.3d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Joshua H.
62 A.D.3d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Appointment of a Guardian of the Person & Property of Nimon
15 A.D.3d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Matter of K.R.C.
2004 NY Slip Op 50660(U) (New York Supreme Court, Tompkins County, 2004)
In re Flight
8 A.D.3d 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 328, 718 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rudick-nyappdiv-2000.