By Petition verified June 8, 2020 and brought by Order to Show Cause, Petitioner E.T. requested that a guardian of the person and property be appointed for her father, N.M. In said Order, the Court allowed Petitioner to act as Temporary Guardian of the Person and Property with limited powers. The Order further appointed Kenneth L. Bobrow, Esq. to serve as Court Evaluator. At an appearance on July 30, 2020, Mr. Bobrow recommended that N.M. have assigned counsel in this proceeding. On August 5, 2020, the Court signed an order appointing Joseph H. Hobika, Jr., Esq. to serve in this capacity. At Mr. Hobika’s request, N.M. was excused from appearing in these proceedings on the basis that he could not meaningfully participate. Petitioner’s description of her father’s condition in the petition supported this request. At an appearance on October 26, 2020, Mr. Bobrow articulated several concerns with Petitioner’s management of her father’s affairs and recommended appointment of an independent guardian. Desiring to protect N.M.’s interests, the Court appointed Carl S. Dziekan, Esq. to serve as Temporary Guardian of the Property. The Order dated November 5, 2020 gave specific powers to Mr. Dziekan and required him to file an initial report by December 3, 2020. The Order further required Petitioner to account to Mr. Dziekan by November 25, 2020 and turn over funds of N.M. in her possession. On November 13, 2020, Petitioner’s counsel B. Brooks Benson, Esq. filed a motion seeking permission to withdraw from the case. Mr. Dziekan filed objections in which he said Petitioner had not complied with the terms of this Court’s order requiring her to account, and he was concerned that the absence of counsel would lead to further delays with compliance. Following oral argument on the motion on December 14, 2020, the Court gave Petitioner until January 15, 2021 to find new counsel. In the event no new counsel was retained, Mr. Benson would be required to serve as standby counsel at the hearing, which the Court scheduled for February 8, 2021. Mr. Hobika again requested that N.M. be excused from the hearing because of his inability to participate in a meaningful way. Petitioner offered nothing to the contrary. The next communication to the Court came by way of letter dated January 21, 2021 from Mr. Bobrow. He asked that a conference be scheduled prior to the start of the hearing, as”events have occurred in this matter which may have significantly affected the landscape.” By letter dated January 22, 2021 from the Principal Court Attorney, the parties and attorneys were advised that the February 8, 2021 hearing date would be converted to a conference. The letter further outlined multiple issues to be addressed at that time. On February 8, 2021, Petitioner, Mr. Benson, Mr. Bobrow, Mr. Dziekan and Mr. Hobika appeared virtually, as did N.M. for the first time. An interpreter participated for N.M.’s benefit. Mr. Benson confirmed that he wished to withdraw as counsel, and the Court orally granted his motion.1 In response to the Court’s concern, Mr. Benson reported that Petitioner notified the Social Security Administration of her father’s medical improvement. The Court ordered Petitioner and Mr. Dziekan to file updated accountings, which both have done. With regard to the pending petition, both Petitioner and N.M. asked that it be withdrawn. Mr. Hobika reported that N.M. had already executed a power of attorney before a notary public, who told Mr. Hobika that N.M. appeared competent to sign. On March 22, 2021, at Petitioner’s request, the Court held a virtual conference with Petitioner, N.M., Mr. Hobika, Mr. Bobrow and Mr. Dziekan. An interpreter was present for this proceeding as well. Petitioner wished to discuss how her father could again receive his Social Security Disability payments, and this matter was addressed with Mr. Dziekan. Petitioner also had questions about some of the attorney’s fee requests received by the Court, and she was given an opportunity to file objections. Upon review of the record, the attorneys’ fee requests, the fee request of the Temporary Guardian of the Property, and the objections filed by Petitioner, the Court’s decision is as follows. Withdrawal of the Petition Given that both the Petitioner and her father requested the guardianship petition be withdrawn, the Court has no reason to deny this relief. In his appearances before this Court, N.M. appeared alert, able to understand the proceedings, and clearly articulate his preferences. Indeed, based upon Petitioner’s description of her father in her petition, as well as his attorney’s repeated requests that N.M. be excused from these proceedings because he presented as unable to participate meaningfully in any aspect thereof, N.M.’s recovery in the span of a few short weeks is nothing short of miraculous. Allocation of Payment of Court Evaluator Fees When a guardianship petition brought pursuant to Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law is either denied or dismissed, “the court may award a reasonable allowance to a court evaluator…payable by the petitioner or by the person alleged to be incapacitated, or both in such proportions as the court may deem just.” (MHL §81.09(f)). A stipulation of withdrawal can be treated the same as a denial or dismissal. (See generally Matter of Bloom, 1 Misc 3d 910[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50014[U] [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2004] [allocating responsibility for attorney's fees in a case withdrawn on stipulation]). Factors for a court to consider when deciding how to allocate fees include “whether there is evidence that the petitioner was motivated by avarice or possible financial gain, whether the petitioner has acted in good faith in commencing the petition, the sufficiency of the petition on its face, the relative assets or indigence of the petitioner and the AIP, and any special circumstances that may exist, such as benefits to the AIP that may have resulted from the filing of the petition.” (Matter of Kurt T., 64 AD3d 819, 823 [3d Dept 2009]). Quite frankly, the Court has concerns about the genuineness of this case. The driving force appears to have been settlement of a Workers’ Compensation claim. As stated in the petition, the claim could not be settled without appointment of a guardian to sign the necessary paperwork. Petitioner was appointed Temporary Guardian for this purpose, and as it typically would, the Court closely managed the settlement funds pending the ultimate outcome of the guardianship hearing. After information was received from the Court Evaluator that highlighted inconsistencies in this case, and after the Court and Mr. Dziekan began to press Petitioner for greater details about her father’s condition, her use of his funds as Temporary Guardian, and her need to present proof at a hearing, the Court then learned of N.M.’s sudden and unexpected recovery. Notably, at no point during the December 14, 2020 court appearance did Petitioner mention anything about her father making any improvement. At a later appearance however, Petitioner told the Court that her father was speaking in full sentences by the end of December. Described in the petition as “disabled mentally” (Petition, 5), “non-communicative” (id.), “mentally incompetent” (id. at
