A guardianship case was brought in Kings County before Surrogate Margarita Lopez-Torrez pursuant Section 17A of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act. In this proceeding the petitioners asked to be appointed guardians of Elit. Surrogate Margarita Lopez-Torez found this would result in the complete removal of Elit’s legal rights to make any decisions over his affairs. Justice Margarita Lopez-Torrez ruled a court was not allowed to limit or tailor a guardianship’s scope to Elit’s specific needs. She held that Article 17A guardianships are distinguishable from Article 81 guardianship that can expressly provide a tailored approach to meet the alleged incompetent’s personal needs.
The Judge’s Ruling
Surrogate Margarita Lopez-Torrez ruled the legal standard was not that petitioners could make better decisions than Elit. The standard was does Elit have the capacity to make his own decisions. Surrogate Lopez-Torrez found the evidence presented to the court did not show Elit had an inability to make decisions on his own with regard to supporting himself. She stated no actual harm resulted from the decision making shown by the evidence presented to the court.
She also stated there was no harm to Elit which would be prevented by the appointment of a guardian. Surrogate Lopez-Torrez found Elit was an adult with some cognitive limitations, but she found Elit had decision making capacity which allowed him to manage his own affairs with the sufficient and reliable support of family members. Elit was already consulting with the petitioners with regard to the managing of his affairs. In the end Surrogate Lopez-Torrez found imposing a guardianship of Elit was not in his best interests. The petition to be appointed guardian under Article 17A of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act by the petitioners was dismissed.
Conclusion
There are 2 types of guardianship. One under 17A of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act and the second one under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law. In this case a guardianship under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law had a better chance of success than the procedure brought under Article 17A of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act.
Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a guardianship caseguardianship lawyer. He represents individuals regarding guardianship issues throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He has been dealing with guardianship matters for more than 45 years. He can be reached for a free consultation at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.
