Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Shirley BREWSTER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, A.J. Contracting Co., Incorporated, Defendant-Appellant. [And Other Actions].
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about October 27, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, as limited by the brief, upon reargument, adhered to the court's prior order denying defendant-appellant A.J. Contracting Company's motion to dismiss that portion of the complaint which asserted negligence claims, held in abeyance and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for the appointment forthwith of a guardian ad litem for plaintiff-respondent who shall, within 60 days of such appointment, take action in this Court to protect plaintiff's interests in this action and appeal.
It has been brought to our attention that while this appeal was pending, but before it had been perfected or submitted, counsel for plaintiff successfully moved to be relieved on the ground that “it appears that Plaintiff has become incompetent to make decisions regarding her case, or to testify in a trial”.
CPLR 1201 mandates that an adult incapable of adequately prosecuting or defending his or her rights shall appear by his or her guardian ad litem. Thus, when they became aware of their client's apparent incompetence, it was incumbent upon plaintiff's counsel to move, pursuant to CPLR 1202(a)(3), for appointment of a guardian ad litem to protect her interests. Even absent such a request, once it was made aware of plaintiff's condition, the Supreme Court should have acted on its own initiative pursuant to CPLR 1202(a) and appointed a guardian ad litem to protect plaintiff's interests.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 06, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)