From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Marilyn A.I.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 8, 2013
106 A.D.3d 821 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-05-8

In the Matter of MARILYN A.I. (Anonymous). Joan P. (Anonymous), appellant; Kevin D. (Anonymous), et al., respondents.

Law Offices of Alan J. Schwartz, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Andre L. Ferenzo and Mitchell Kaufman of counsel), for appellant. Kaplan Belsky Ross Bartell, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Joel S. Kaplan of counsel), for respondent Marilyn A. I.



Law Offices of Alan J. Schwartz, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Andre L. Ferenzo and Mitchell Kaufman of counsel), for appellant. Kaplan Belsky Ross Bartell, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Joel S. Kaplan of counsel), for respondent Marilyn A. I.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, and RUTH C. BALKIN, JJ.

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian for the personal needs and property management of Marilyn A. I., an alleged incapacitated person, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Asarch, J.), dated March 7, 2012, as, after a hearing, failed to appoint her as a co-guardian of the person of Marilyn A.I. together with George P. Esernio, Esq.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In selecting a guardian for an incapacitated person, the primary concern is for the best interests of the incapacitated person( see Matter of Von Bulow, 63 N.Y.2d 221, 224, 481 N.Y.S.2d 67, 470 N.E.2d 866;Matter of Rudick, 278 A.D.2d 328, 329, 718 N.Y.S.2d 202). In the instant case, the record plainly indicates that a strong dissension existed between Marilyn A. I., the incapacitated person, and the petitioner, who is her daughter. Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to appoint the petitioner as a co-guardian of the person of Marilyn A.I. ( see Matter of Ollie D., 30 A.D.3d 599, 600, 817 N.Y.S.2d 142;Matter of West, 13 A.D.2d 599, 600, 212 N.Y.S.2d 832).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

In re Marilyn A.I.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 8, 2013
106 A.D.3d 821 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

In re Marilyn A.I.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MARILYN A.I. (Anonymous). Joan P. (Anonymous), appellant…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: May 8, 2013

Citations

106 A.D.3d 821 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
964 N.Y.S.2d 640
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3330

Citing Cases

Rogers B. B. v. Fernando A. B.

"Even where the court finds that appointment of a guardian is necessary, it is not required to appoint the…

Loftman v. Mae R.

The statute specifies the relevant considerations and issues in the determination of the need for a guardian,…