In this proceeding pursuant to Article 17-A of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act, Allen H., the respondent’s brother, filed a petition seeking to be appointed successor guardian of her person and to add property powers. He also requests that his son David H., the respondent’s nephew, be appointed successor standby guardian of her person and property. The petition did not disclose any other interested parties other than the director of the facility where the respondent resides. The court thereafter directed supplemental citation to be issued to Leon H., another brother, over whom jurisdiction was obtained. The 76-year-old respondent’s parents were appointed guardians of her person pursuant to decree dated September 18, 1979, which determined the respondent to be intellectually disabled and appointed the petitioner standby guardian and the Leon H. first alternate standby guardian of the respondent’s person only. On the date of the virtual hearing, the petitioner, Leon H., Jordan H., another nephew who is not named in the petition and for whom the appropriate fingerprint and OCFS searches were not conducted, and counsel for Mental Hygiene Legal Services First Department (MHLS) appeared remotely. Although the petitioner ostensibly solely seeks additional property powers to marshal modest accrued social security benefits held by the nursing facility, Leon’s uncontroverted testimony was that property powers are needed to finalize a settlement in the respondent’s father’s wrongful death action that is pending in a different court. He also testified that the respondent’s distributive share of the settlement proceeds is to be placed in a recently established supplemental needs trust, which was not authorized by this court. Consequently, counsel for MHLS, who had previously indicated approval of the application, supplemented her report on the record to the extent of only recommending the appointment of the petitioner as successor guardian of the person at this time. On this state of the record, although it is the respondent’s best interests that a successor guardian of her person be appointed and that it appears that the petitioner is qualified to act as such, there are significant omissions in the petition concerning the respondent’s assets and interest in the pending settlement, and given the fact that the petitioner sua sponte seeks the appointment of an additional nephew as a successor guardian for whom no information was provided to the court, the application is granted only to the extent of appointing the respondent’s brother, Allen H., temporary successor guardian of the person of the respondent. The letters of guardianship of the person issued to the respondent’s deceased parents, Bernard H. and Madeline H. are revoked. The Chief Clerk shall mail copies of this decision and the order amending the decree dated September 18, 1979 to the petitioner and MHLS. Order signed. Dated: August 27, 2020
