From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Abraham S

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 2002
291 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-00514

Submitted January 25, 2002.

February 14, 2002.

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 in which a guardian was appointed for Abraham S., an incapacitated person, by order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated February 5, 1999, Paul S. and Bernard S. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court (Thomas, J.), dated December 8, 2000, as granted the motion of Abraham S. to discharge the guardian.

Howard L. Blau, New York, N.Y. (Galianna Glantz on the brief), for appellants.

Wapner, Koplovitz Futerfas, PLLC, Kingston, N.Y. (Joshua N. Koplovitz of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Paul S. and Bernard S. (hereinafter the appellants) commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 for the appointment of a guardian for their father, Abraham S. A guardian was appointed in February 1999. In June 2000 Abraham S. moved to terminate the guardianship (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36).

The appellants did not submit any papers in opposition to their father's motion and they did not offer any opposition at the hearing held on the motion. In fact, at the hearing, the court noted "[t]here seems to be no family opposition to this". Although Frances S., the appellants' sister, cross-moved, approximately one month after the hearing, to continue the guardianship, the appellants did not join in that motion. The appellants therefore are not aggrieved parties and the appeal must be dismissed (see, CPLR 5511; Acierno v. Hotsy Corp., 289 A.D.2d 271 [2d Dept., Dec. 10, 2001]; Whiteman v. Temimah, 255 A.D.2d 378; Pesantez v. Boyle Envtl., 251 A.D.2d 11). Furthermore, the issues raised in the cross motion of Frances S. are not properly before this court, as she did not file a notice of appeal (see, Matter of MacKay v. Essenberg, 264 A.D.2d 700; D.T. Plumbing Supply Corp. v. Weinstein, 253 A.D.2d 732; CPLR 5515).

FLORIO, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, O'BRIEN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Abraham S

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 2002
291 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

In the Matter of Abraham S

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ABRAHAM S. (ANONYMOUS), respondent; PAUL S. (ANONYMOUS)…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 14, 2002

Citations

291 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
737 N.Y.S.2d 542

Citing Cases

Viggiani v. Grodotzke

The plaintiffs did not submit any papers in opposition to the defendant's motion. No appeal lies from an…

Southern v. Southern

She also sought to vacate an August 30, 2012 order finding that respondent father abused and derivatively…