In re Specht

265 A.D.2d 919, 695 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10046
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 1, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 919 (In re Specht) 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 Specht, 265 A.D.2d 919, 695 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: A judgment was entered subsequent to the order from which this appeal was taken. The order is subsumed in the judgment and the appeal is properly taken from the judgment, not the order (see, Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988). We exercise our discretion to disregard the misstatement in the notice of appeal (see, CPLR 5520 [c]), and we deem the appeal to have been taken from the judgment (see, Soto v Montanez, 201 AD2d 876; Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, supra).

In this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, the alleged incapacitated person (AIP) agreed to pay the award of a reasonable allowance to the court evaluator (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.09 [f]). After the court evaluator submitted her affirmation of services rendered, however, the AIP objected to the amount sought by the court evaluator. Under those circumstances, Supreme Court erred in determining the amount to be awarded the court evaluator without conducting a hearing (see, Matter of Susan P., 243 AD2d 568, 569; Matter of Stark, 174 AD2d 746, 748). In addition, the court did not discharge its duty to explain, in writing, the reasons for awarding fees in excess of $2,500 (see, 22 NYCRR 36.4 [b]). We therefore reverse the judgment, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine the amount of the reasonable allowance to be awarded the court evaluator. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J. — Mental Hygiene Law.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Gordon
2020 NY Slip Op 07134 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
In re Samuel S.
96 A.D.3d 954 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Jack S.
88 A.D.3d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Talcott v. Zurenda
48 A.D.3d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Troy Sand & Gravel Co. v. New York State Department of Transportation
277 A.D.2d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
265 A.D.2d 919, 695 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-specht-nyappdiv-1999.