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.
IN RE: the GUARDIANSHIP OF CARL K.D., an alleged incompetent person. Eugene B. Young, Esq., Petitioner-Appellant; Cynthia Dorsey, Respondent-Respondent.
By an order of Supreme Court dated January 19, 1988, respondent was appointed conservator of the property of her incapacitated husband. By decree dated August 3, 2000, however, Surrogate's Court appointed respondent guardian of her husband's “person and property.” From the years 2002 through 2006, respondent filed annual accounts only with Surrogate's Court.
Petitioner moved in Supreme Court to compel respondent to file annual reports in compliance with Mental Hygiene Law § 81.31, and he sought payment of his fees. Respondent cross-moved to vacate Supreme Court's January 19, 1988 order nunc pro tunc to August 3, 2000, the date of the Surrogate's decree. We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting respondent's cross motion without first conducting a hearing as required by Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36(c) and ordering petitioner to file a final report in compliance with Mental Hygiene Law § 81.33(b), in view of the Surrogate's decree. Further, absent a proper modification or vacatur of Supreme Court's order, respondent's annual accounts with Surrogate's Court from the years 2002 through 2006 did not comply with article 81 and were thus insufficient to satisfy respondent's duty to file annual reports with Supreme Court. We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine the motion and cross motion in compliance with Mental Hygiene Law article 81.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
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: November 23, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)