In re Usdin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Usdin

204 A.D.2d 64, 612 N.Y.S.2d 3

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

DecidedMay 3, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 64 (In re Usdin) 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 Usdin, 204 A.D.2d 64, 612 N.Y.S.2d 3 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Kings County (Sebastian Leone, J.), entered on or about March 2, 1993, dismissing this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law former article 77 for the appointment of a conservator of the property of respondent proposed conservatee, and directing petitioner to pay respondent guardian ad litem $2,500 for her legal services rendered herein and $100 for her disbursements, and order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered November 3, 1993, directing such payment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, who has pecuniary interests of his own at stake, comes forward with no credible argument that he is a "friend” within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law former § 77.03 (a) (see, Klotz v Klotz, 176 AD2d 661, 663, appeal dismissed 80 NY2d 923). Since petitioner lacked standing, the court properly exercised its discretion in directing petitioner to pay the guardian’s fee (Mental Hygiene Law former § 77.07 [d]). There is no basis for a finding that the fee was unreasonable or that the guardian did not adequately perform her duties. Judgment was properly entered pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law former § 77.07 (e). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Kings County (Sebastian Leone, J.), entered on or about March 2, 1993, dismissing this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law former article 77 for the appointment of a conservator of the property of respondent proposed conservatee, and directing petitioner to pay respondent guardian ad litem $2,500 for her legal services rendered herein and $100 for her disbursements, and order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered November 3, 1993, directing such payment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, who has pecuniary interests of his own at stake, comes forward with no credible argument that he is a "friend” within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law former § 77.03 (a) (see, Klotz v Klotz, 176 AD2d 661, 663, appeal dismissed 80 NY2d 923). Since petitioner lacked standing, the court properly exercised its discretion in directing petitioner to pay the guardian’s fee (Mental Hygiene Law former § 77.07 [d]). There is no basis for a finding that the fee was unreasonable or that the guardian did not adequately perform her duties. Judgment was properly entered pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law former § 77.07 (e). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 64, 612 N.Y.S.2d 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-usdin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack