The respondent’s caretaker petitions and his sister separately cross petitions seeking to be appointed successor guardian of his person and property. On the return date of an order to show cause filed by the sister seeking, inter alia, temporary letters of successor guardianship of the person and property of the respondent and preclusion of the caretaker from contacting the respondent, the parties executed a written stipulation, inter alia, setting forth a discovery schedule, appointing the guardian ad litem appointed for the respondent as temporary guardian of his person, and withdrawing the parties’ separate requests for property guardianship, as it appears that a supplemental needs trust was previously established for the ward’s benefit. A hearing was held on December 12 and 13, 2018 and is to be continued on March 19, 2019.The respondent, who is now 57 years old, was determined to be intellectually disabled pursuant to a decree dated July 17, 1981, which appointed his parents co-guardians of his person, an aunt as standby guardian, and the sister as first alternate standby guardian. Both parents and the standby guardian are now deceased. The respondent currently resides at realty owned by the deceased father, whose estate is the subject of a contested probate proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County. The caretaker, an occupational therapist, originally was hired by the father to bathe the respondent weekly. She moved into the three-family home in Yonkers where the father and respondent resided after the father’s heath deteriorated and he was admitted to a nursing facility and hospice care. The father died on July 1, 2018. The sister was estranged from her parents for many years and had no contact with the respondent, although she kept in touch with a cousin who is the nominated executor of the testamentary instrument and trustee of the supplemental needs trust executed by the father prior to his death and another cousin, both of whom maintained constant contact with the father and the respondent. The respondent is the primary beneficiary of the father’s estate and death benefits.On November 10, 2018, after making arrangements with the caretaker, the other cousin of the respondent picked him up from his home and took him to the home of his aunt, where his sister awaited. The sister took him to an urgent care facility in Long Island which noted certain significant medical issues. The sister then went with the respondent by train to California, where she resides, and took him to physicians and a dentist. She made continuing medical and dental appointments for the respondent in California for treatment of those issues, inter alia, rectal bleeding, infected toes, cellulitis, dermatological issues throughout his back and significant dental decay. She returned with the respondent to New York for the hearing, indicates that she will return to New York for the continued hearing and intends to reside at another Yonkers home where the respondent resided for many years with his parents which is being renovated.On this state of the record, that the sister was appointed first alternate guardian of the respondent in the decree dated July 17, 1981, the caretaker’s testimony established that she only sought medical attention for the respondent for high blood pressure on one occasion and did not address his other significant medical and dental issues, the sister promptly addressed those issues and made arrangements for the respondent’s continuing medical and dental care, the court ruled from the bench that it is in the best interests of the respondent that the sister and guardian ad litem were to serve as temporary co-guardians of the respondent’s person. The court also notes that although the caretaker’s petition and OCFS applications note only that the respondent and the caretaker reside at the respondent’s residence, the caretaker has full-time outside employment and has delegated the respondent’s day-to-day care to her son and the son’s girlfriend, both of whom occupy the downstairs apartment, and for whom the appropriate fingerprint and OCFS searches are absent.Accordingly, this decision constitutes the order of the court appointing the respondent’s sister, Mary C. N. and his guardian ad litem, Angelo Grasso, Esq., as temporary co-guardians of his person.The Chief Clerk shall mail copies of this decision and order to counsel for the parties and the guardian ad litem.Proceed accordingly.
