Matter of Francois

2026 NY Slip Op 00083
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 13, 2026
DocketIndex No. 500746/23; Appeal No. 5549; Case No. 2024-06799
StatusPublished

This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 00083 (Matter of Francois) 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
Matter of Francois, 2026 NY Slip Op 00083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

Matter of Francois (2026 NY Slip Op 00083)
Matter of Francois
2026 NY Slip Op 00083
Decided on January 13, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: January 13, 2026
Before: Kern, J.P. SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1, Kennedy, Higgitt, O'Neill Levy, Chan, JJ.

Index No. 500746/23|Appeal No. 5549|Case No. 2024-06799|

[*1]In the Matter of Fritz Francois, MD, etc., Respondent, For the Appointment of a Guardian for the Person and Property of J.L., Also Known as J.A., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, L.A., Nonparty-Appellant.


Lisa Aptaker, appellant pro se.

Miller & Milone, P.C., Garden City (Tammy Rose Lawlor of counsel), for respondent.



Appeal from amended order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Aija Tingling, J.), entered October 17, 2024, which granted the petition for the appointment of a guardian of the person and property of J. L., also known as J. A., an alleged incapacitated person (AIP), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As an initial matter, nonparty appellant, who is the AIP's daughter, has standing pursuant to CPLR 5511 to challenge the October 17, 2024 order because she opposed the petition.

Supreme Court properly found that petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the AIP is not able to provide for her personal needs and property management, cannot adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of such inability, and is incapacitated as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02(b).

We have considered appellant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: January 13, 2026



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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 NY Slip Op 00083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-francois-nyappdiv-2026.