X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The following papers, numbered 1 to 5 were considered on this Order to Show Cause to permit the funding of a Special Needs Trust:Papers  NumberedNotice of Motion/Order to Show Cause — Affidavits — Exhibits  1, 2Interim Order of this Court dated August 29, 2018         3Additional Submission Exhibits (Memo)         4, 5DECISION AND ORDER Upon the foregoing documents, it isORDERED that this Order to Show Cause by plaintiff seeking an order permitting the funding of the Ismael Daniel Montanez Special Needs Trust is denied, without prejudice, for the reasons stated below.At the outset, the Court notes that despite bearing a 2010 Index Number and that this is the 12th motion filed in this case, this matter was recently transferred into this Part’s case inventory, on or about August 2018, after the recusal by Justice David B. Cohen, the judge who initially signed the within Order to Show Cause. Additionally, according to the court’s computer records, this matter was settled, prior to trial, on January 9, 2018, before Justice Erika Edwards.1Upon initial review of the within Order to Show Cause, as the moving papers were significantly lacking2, rather than denying the requested relief outright, as a courtesy, this Court issued an Interim Order dated August 29, 2018, requiring the submission of additional documents/information. Notably, an attorney’s affirmation in support of the requested relief had not been supplied in the papers originally submitted with the Order to Show Cause, nor was an approval by HRA of the proposed Special Needs Trust included (see CPLR 1206-1208). Further, there was no indication in the moving papers that the procedure outlined in CPLR 1206, 1207 and 1208 had been followed, with respect to the settlement of an action involving a person in which a guardian had been appointed, which appears to be necessary in the case herein. Notably, there was also no indication that the settlement of the claim had been approved by the Court after the filing of a Compromise Order, nor that an order of settlement had been issued, as required (see CPLR 1207). Moreover, while reference was made in the Order to Show Cause to a General Release dated January 25, 2019, the General Release was not supplied in the initial moving papers.After the issuance of this Court’s Interim Order dated August 29, 2018, plaintiff submitted additional papers to further support the granting of the requested relief. However, upon review of the additional submissions, and based upon the applicable law, this Court is constrained to deny the within Order to Show Cause, without prejudice, as explained below.Most notably, while Maritza Poventud, mother of Ismael Daniel Montanez (“Ismael”) is labeled in the caption as a “Guardian Ad Litem” of Ismael, no order has been supplied by the movant which actually appointed Maritza Poventud as a “Guardian Ad Litem”, which presumably is indicative that the appointment was only for this lawsuit.3 Rather, the Order to Show Cause contains a copy of a “Certificate of Appointment of Guardian”, from the Queens County Surrogate’s Court, dated January 12, 2012, appointing Maritza Poventud, as the Guardian of Ismael Daniel Montanez, pursuant to Article 17-A of the Surrogate Court’s Procedures Act (“SCPA”), which is titled, Guardians of Persons who are Intellectually Disabled and Developmentally Disabled (see Exh. A, Order to Show Cause).(Exh. A, Order to Show Cause). The Certificate of Appointment further provides that Ismael was born on June 13, 1984, and, thus, was 28 years of age at the time of such appointment, and, is currently 34 years of age.Guardians appointed pursuant to SCPA 17-A, as it appears to be the case herein, are to be treated in the same way as committees, conservators and Article 81 guardians and, as such, the provisions governing the settlement of claims provided in CPLR 1206-1208 are applicable to such an appointed guardian (see Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLRC1201:2; Trotta v. Phelan, 161 Misc 2d 853 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 1994]).Thus, it appears that the settlement of the within claim involving a guardian appointed pursuant to SCPA 17-A, like a guardian appointed pursuant to Article 81 for an incapacitated person,“requires court approval, which is applied for with a motion…[A]n approval of the settlement results in an order…CPLR 1208 prescribes the papers to be submitted and the incidental procedure to be followed. The rules elaborate. These requirements should be carried out to the letter. On the hearing of the settlement application the applicant, the ward, and the ward’s attorney must attend before the court…”(Siegel, NY Prac section 200, at 369 [6th ed][emphasis supplied]). Here, as indicated above, the procedure for the settlement of the subject claim involving an intellectually or developmentally disabled person, as appears to be the case herein, does not appear to have been followed as no “Compromise Order”4 has been supplied and, thus, the application for a Special Needs Trust is denied, without prejudice to resubmission and compliance with CPLR 1206-1208, as required.5As such, it isORDERED that the within Order to Show Cause seeking an order permitting the funding of the Ismael Daniel Montanez Special Needs Trust is denied, without prejudice, to expeditiously resubmitting and compliance with the provisions of CPLR 1206-1208, or, providing a detailed explanation as to why such statutes fail to apply herein, with a memorandum of law and supporting case law; and it is furtherORDERED that this matter will appear on the Court’s Calendar on June 13, 2019, as a control date and the parties need not appear, but shall update this Court by letter, as to the status of this case (The letter shall contain a copy of this order attached to the outside of the envelope containing such letter and shall reference the control date, Attn: Court Attorney Donna Albano, Esq.).Dated: March 29, 2019CHECK ONE:      CASE DISPOSED   X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION                GRANTED              DENIED  GRANTED IN PART               X OTHERAPPLICATION:   SETTLE ORDER    SUBMIT ORDERCHECK IF APPROPRIATE:            INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT            REFERENCE

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
September 04, 2025
New York, NY

The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.


Learn More
February 24, 2025 - February 26, 2025
Las Vegas, NV

This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.


Learn More
March 24, 2025
New York, NY

Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.


Learn More

Company DescriptionA prominent boutique AV rated Education Law firm located in Westbury, New York. Our firm specializes in education law, sp...


Apply Now ›

Seeking motivated and skilled litigation attorney to join our dynamic defense litigation firm. Role Involves:Conducting thorough research.Ha...


Apply Now ›

DEPUTY PORT ATTORNEY III Oakland, CA Salary: $17,294 - $21,419/month, 37.5-hr work week Your Port. Your Community. Your Career. Whe...


Apply Now ›