IN RE: NANCY S.P. (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian of the person and property of Nancy S. P., an alleged incapacitated person, nonparty Jacqueline Scanlon appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wyatt N. Gibbons, J.), dated July 23, 2024.  The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, granted the petition and appointed the petitioners as coguardians to manage Nancy S. P.'s person and property.

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

In January 2024, the petitioners commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to be appointed as coguardians of their mother, Nancy S. P., who they alleged was diagnosed with dementia in 2020.  The appellant, who is another daughter of Nancy S. P., opposed the petition.  In a judgment dated July 23, 2024, made after a hearing, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the petition and appointed the petitioners as coguardians to manage Nancy S. P.'s person and property.  This appeal ensued.

The Supreme Court may appoint a guardian if the court determines that the appointment is necessary to provide for a person's personal needs or to manage his or her property and financial affairs and if the person agrees to the appointment or is incapacitated (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a];  Matter of Joan A.C. [Debra A.C.-Irene R.], 217 A.D.3d 941, 942, 192 N.Y.S.3d 217).  In deciding whether the appointment is necessary, the court must consider the investigation of a court evaluator and the sufficiency and reliability of available resources to provide for personal needs or property management without the appointment of a guardian (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a];  Matter of Harold W.S. [Mark P.-Lauralyn W.], 134 A.D.3d 724, 724, 22 N.Y.S.3d 73).  “ ‘Moreover, a guardian should be appointed only as a last resort, where no available resources or other alternative will adequately protect the alleged incapacitated person’ ” (Matter of Maria Z. [Bonifacio Z.], 204 A.D.3d 930, 931, 164 N.Y.S.3d 881, quoting Matter of Fritz G., 164 A.D.3d 503, 504, 77 N.Y.S.3d 872;  see Matter of Vicki M.A. [Lynda P.-Lisa P.], 218 A.D.3d 769, 770, 192 N.Y.S.3d 684).

Here, clear and convincing evidence established that Nancy S.P. was incapacitated (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b] ).  Moreover, contrary to the appellant's contention, the evidence supported a finding that the appointment of a guardian was necessary to provide for Nancy S. P.'s personal needs and to manage her property and financial affairs (see id. § 81.02[a] ).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in appointing coguardians.

The appellant's remaining contention is not properly before the Court.

LASALLE, P.J., VOUTSINAS, LOVE and HOM, JJ., concur.