The issue presented in this case concerns whether the proposed guardian-spouse of the Alleged Incapacitated Person (hereafter “AIP”), who is found to have physically abused and neglected the AIP, can be deemed suitable to serve as guardian. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Approximately nine-years ago, the AIP suffered a debilitating stroke, losing the use of the left side of her body. Following that stroke, the AIP remained home in a physically challenged condition under the care of her husband. Over the course of several years, the AIP and her husband hired aides to provide home care to the AIP, but the AIP’s husband regularly conflicted with the aides, ultimately leading to their termination of employment. On December 27, 2021, the AIP was transported by Emergency Medical Services to petitioner Stony Brook Hospital. At the hospital, the AIP presented with extensive bruising to much of her body, as well as severe decubitus ulcers. She reported to several hospital employees that her bruising was the result of her husband striking her. Yet the AIP expressed a desire to return home to live with her husband. In a verified petition, the petitioner sought judicial appointment of a guardian for the AIP, alleging that the AIP’s physical condition and inability to perform the activities of daily living coupled with the lack of a safe-discharge-plan satisfied the elements of necessity and incapacity required for appointment of a guardian. This Court signed an Order to Show Cause, setting a date for a hearing pursuant to MHL §81.11, appointed an independent Part 36 temporary guardian for the AIP, appointed counsel for the AIP, and appointed a court evaluator pursuant to MHL §81.09 to investigate the circumstances surrounding the application. On September 12, 2022, the Court conducted the MHL §81.11 hearing. The AIP appeared via Microsoft Teams and was ably represented by counsel from Mental Hygiene Legal Service. The AIP’s husband (hereafter “Mr. M”) appeared with retained counsel, who represented Mr. M in a related criminal proceeding wherein Mr. M plead guilty to a misdemeanor domestic violence crime but had yet to be sentenced1. The facts underlying the criminal charge mirrored some of the allegations of physical abuse in the instant case. To preserve Mr. M’s due process rights in the criminal proceeding and to ensure his wishes were properly presented to this Court, Mr. M’s counsel was granted permission to interpose objections and make limited legal arguments. At the hearing, petitioner called four witnesses, who established by clear and convincing evidence that the AIP was physically incapable of performing the activities of daily living due to significant cognitive impairment and inability to control a significant portion of her body. Doctor Michael Secko testified as to his observations of the AIP while treating her as a patient on 12/27/21. Dr. Secko testified that he observed extensive bruising to the AIP, including her sacral area, chest, back, neck and arms. He also observed decubitus ulcers, which are often the result of pressure sores when a patient remains in one position for an extended period. The AIP repeatedly advised Dr. Secko that she was hit. Dr. Secko ordered diagnostic scans, which revealed several additional injuries, including prior fractures of the hip and femur which had already healed to some extent. He took several photographs to document these bruises, four of which were admitted as Petitioner’s exhibits 1-4. Doctor Munirah Hasan testified as to her observations of the AIP while treating her in January of 2022. Dr. Hasan described the AIP as very frail, deconditioned, and malnourished. Dr. Hasan recalled the AIP had older fractures which were revealed by a CT scan and that there were multiple bruises throughout her body, including on her chest, shoulders, face and arms. The AIP told several hospital employees that the AIP’s husband had punched her. Dr. Hasan indicated that, if the AIP had been properly positioned, the decubitus ulcers could have been avoided. Dr. Hasan testified that the AIP was completely dependent on others to bathe, dress, feed and toilet and that the AIP would require continuing care in a long-term care facility, or at home with a full-time care plan. Nurse-Practitioner Loreen Diot testified that she treated the AIP during two separate admissions, including one in December 2021. During the December 2021 admission, she recounted a conversation with the AIP’s husband wherein he admitted that he struck the AIP, causing bruising on her body and said “he felt bad about it.” Social worker Anna DeRosa testified that the AIP is currently a patient at her rehabilitation facility where she requires 24 hour care for personal and physical needs. Ms. DeRosa’s testimony indicated that the AIP is unable to dress, feed, or ambulate. A mechanical hover lift is required to reposition the AIP. Additionally, the AIP unable to manage medications or verbalize complex thoughts or requests. Testimony further reflected that the AIP either refuses or is unable to properly intake nutrition sufficient to maintain her weight. The AIP has been administered mental status examinations, resulting in findings of moderate cognitive impairment. After the Petitioner rested, the AIP rested without calling witnesses. The Court then heard testimony of the Court Evaluator, who provided further insight into the wishes of the parties. The Report of the Court Evaluator was admitted, without objection, as Court Exhibit No.1. An excerpt of the Court Evaluator Report regarding her interview of the AIP’s husband is reproduced below: “Regarding his wife, [Mr. M] said that she is ‘a goddess’ and ‘I love her so much.’ He is an artist and photographer, and said that he has a book of photography that includes, pictures of her. He also mentioned that he has a website of his art and photography [Mr. M's website], and has picture of his wife’s bedsores on his website. When questioned about the bruises that were on his wife at her last admission to the hospital, he said, ‘I screwed up one time.’ He admitted that he did hit her, but that she was also on Coumadin, which contributed to the bruises. He said this was the only time he hit her. According to him, three weeks before he hit her, she woke him up five times every night. He added that he did not break her shoulder and did not break her hip, and stated that ‘Stony Brook broke her ankle two times,’ 1-2 years before the pandemic. [Mr. M] said, ‘I want her in this home, whether I have to hire people. This is her home and her life. It is not fair to her.’ He said that [AIP] owned the home. He said that they have had people help before, and he has two people willing to work right now. However, he added ‘if she’ll have them’ regarding any outside help; he also did not think she would want 24 hour help. When I asked [Mr. M] if he was retired, he said, ‘I wish I could.’ He said that he does not get paid from Medicaid for caring for his wife, as she had reported. He stated that he has been with his wife for 40 years and ‘I’m willing to do anything to be with her until we die.’ Regarding his health, he said that he is two years younger than his wife but suffered a massive heart attack 12 years ago. When asked what would happen to his wife if he were unable to care for her, he stated, ‘[Their son] would step in and make it happen.’ At the conclusion of our interview, [Mr. M ] reiterated that his wife is ‘an angel’ and his ‘soulmate’ and that ‘she has every right to come home.’ When questioned what would prevent him from hitting her again, he said, ‘If there is help in the house, as long as I can sleep at night, it will never happen again.’ He felt that he only required eight hours of help daily, so that he could sleep.” (Court Evaluator Report, Pgs. 8-9) An excerpt of the Court Evaluator Report regarding her interview of the AIP is reproduced below: “[AIP] was interviewed while lying in a hospital bed. She affirmed that she understood my role and the pending action. She stated, ‘they think I don’t have my wits about me.’ She then added, ‘I don’t want a guardian’ and ‘I want to go home.’ [AIP] was on nasal oxygen and appeared older than her reported age. She is unable to move the left side of her body. Her speech was empty and vague, and she provided mostly one-word answers. Her affect was flat. On a mental status exam, however, she was fully oriented and her short-term memory intact. She lost points only on copying a pentagon and a test of attention and working memory. Nevertheless, her awareness and judgment were poor. Although she stated that she could take care of herself, it was apparent that she could not. [AIP] reported that she had had a brain aneurysm eight years ago and was now disabled. She also added that she needs a knee replacement. She stated that she did not know what medication she is taking (later she said that she was on Oxycodone and gabapentin). She reported that she lived in a house with her husband. Regarding activities of daily living, she said that her husband bathed her, gave her her [sic] medication, cooked, and managed the finances. [AIP] believed that he received money from Medicaid’s Freedom Care to take care of her. When asked if her husband was physically able to care for her, she reported that he is 65 and has ‘clots in his lungs.’ When questioned whether he had hit her, she denied. She stated that her bruises were from the medication helping her sleep. When asked about her children, she said they are not able to take care of her; one son lives in Florida and the son who lives in Queens works.” (Court Evaluator Report, Pgs. 6-7) Court Evaluator, Dr. Lynn Schaefer, testified that she met with the AIP. She described several conflicting and inconsistent statements from the AIP about her condition, functional limitations, and plan of care. Dr. Schaefer testified that the AIP was unable to move half of her body, could not bathe herself, clean or cook. Yet, the AIP insisted that she was able to take care of herself and that she did not want or need a guardian. The AIP reportedly stated that if she did need a guardian, her husband would be able to serve in that role. However, when asked if her husband was physically capable of serving as her guardian, the AIP responded that her husband had “clots in his lungs” and referenced his physical limitations. The AIP denied that her husband struck her, despite her prior disclosures to medical staff and her husband’s admission that he struck the AIP causing her bruising. The AIP’s inconsistent reporting and confusion demonstrate impaired judgment and reflect an inability to safely plan for her future. Dr. Schaefer interviewed the AIP’s brother and son, both of whom indicated they were unwilling to serve as guardian. Dr. Schaefer recommended appointment of an independent guardian to address the AIP’s personal needs and property management. Following the testimony of the Court Evaluator, this Court entertained sworn statements from interested parties. First, the AIP’s husband gave a sworn statement in which he requested to be appointed her guardian. Next, the AIP’s son gave a sworn statement in which he requested that the AIP’s husband be appointed guardian for the AIP. LEGAL DISCUSSION Pursuant to MHL §81.15(b) and (c), this Court finds that Petitioner has established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the AIP has functional limitations which impair her ability to provide for her personal needs and property management needs, in that she is physically and cognitively incapable of performing activities of daily living. After suffering a stroke, the AIP lost the ability to control a significant portion of her body. Additionally, she suffers from poor nutrition and deficient caretaking. She cannot bathe, reposition her body, ambulate, feed herself, manage medications, nor toilet without extensive assistance. Further, the AIP is unable to verbalize complex thoughts and cannot participate in banking activities, bill paying or preparation of a Medicaid application. The AIP has a lack of understanding or appreciation of the nature and consequences of her functional limitations, as evidenced by her wish to return home and belief that she can take care of her personal needs at home under the care of her husband. There is a likelihood that the AIP will suffer harm due to these functional limitations and her inability to adequately understand and appreciate these limitations. This is evidenced by the AIP’s recent hospitalization and placement in a care facility, failure to prepare a Medicaid application and failure to secure home-health aides or home care to prevent the development of decubitus ulcers. Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Court finds that the appointment of a personal needs and property management Guardian is warranted and necessary to prevent harm to the AIP (See MHL §81.15[b]). The primary outstanding issue concerns the selection of the guardian. This Court is mindful that the AIP has nominated her husband to serve as her guardian, and that the AIP’s son expressed a desire to have his father (the husband) serve as guardian. The husband testified that he wants to remain her “husband,” which presumably means he wishes to act as Guardian for the AIP. But, he admits that he is personally unable to provide for the extensive needs of the AIP and would have to hire care providers to assist him. Unfortunately, ten (10) different care providers who previously assisted the AIP now refuse to enter her home due to the husband’s maltreatment. This Court is also aware that MHL §81.19 describes family members as eligible guardians (“including but not limited to a spouse, adult child, parent, or sibling”), and that MHL §81.19 3(C) directs that: “In the absence of a nomination in accordance with section 81.17 of this article, the court shall appoint a person nominated by the person alleged to be incapacitated orally or by conduct during the hearing or trial unless the court determines for good cause that such appointment is not appropriate.” Relevant caselaw reflects a statutory construction which demonstrates a preference for family members to serve as guardian. See Matter of Joshua H., 62 AD3d 795, 796 (2nd Dept, 2009) (“The appointment of a family member is preferable, but if a suitable family member is not available, it is within the court’s discretion to appoint an outsider.”). Indeed, the nearly one-hundred year old case, In re Dietz, 247 A.D. 366, 367 (1st Dept, 1936), which has been frequently cited and was endorsed by the Appellate Division, First Department as recently as 2004, pronounces this preference in absolute terms: “In the exercise of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court dealing with the affairs of incompetents, it has long been the rule that strangers will not be appointed as committee of the person or property of the incompetent, unless it is impossible to find within the family circle, or their nominees, one who is qualified to serve.” See In re Bertha W., 1 AD3d 603, 604 (1st Dept, 2004); See Also In re Estate of Gustafson, 308 AD2d 305, 307 (1st Dept, 2003). However, it is equally clear that when family members are unsuitable, the Court has the discretion to appoint non-family members as guardians. See Matter of Audrey D., 48 AD3d 806, 807 (2nd Dept, 2008); See Also Matter of Ardelia R., 28 AD3d 485, 487 (2nd Dept, 2006); In re Estate of Gustafson, 308 AD2d 305, 307 (1st Dept, 2003) (“The established preference for a relative may be overridden by a showing that the proposed guardian-relative has rendered inadequate care to the IP, has interests adverse to the IP or otherwise is unsuitable to exercise the powers necessary to assist the IP”). Caselaw provides guidance as to circumstances in which family members are found “unsuitable” to serve as guardians. In re Joseph V., 307 AD2d 469, 471; Matter of Ardelia R., 28 AD3d 485 (2nd Dept., 2006); Matter of Audrey D., 48 AD3d 806, 807 (2nd Dept, 2008); Matter of Caryl S.S. (Valerie L.S.), 47 Misc 3d 1201(A), 1201A (Bronx Supreme, 2015). Although the facts of the above-cited cases are distinguishable from the instant matter, the Court derives further guidance from the statutory factors enumerated in MHL §81.19 (d) in determining the “suitability” of the Incapacitated Party’s (hereafter “IP”) husband as proposed Guardian. In analyzing relevant case law and applying the applicable statutory criteria, this Court finds the proposed Guardian-husband to be unsuitable. The obvious tension in this case concerns the desire of the Court to honor three somewhat conflicting goals: First, the need to impose the least restrictive form of intervention consistent with the needs of the IP in light of her functional limitations. Second, the requirement that the court lend dignity and respect to the IP and grant her maximal self-determination. Third, the necessity of appointing a fiduciary who will ensure the IP’s safety is protected and personal and property management needs are met. Here, the husband’s admission of abuse of the IP and his concomitant criminal conviction resulting in the issuance of an Order of Protection in favor of the IP, reflect that he is unsuitable. Evidence further established the IP suffered prior fractures and bruising as well as decubitus ulcers through the neglect of her husband-caretaker. Additionally, the husband alienated and mistreated numerous care aides for the AIP, resulting in more than ten care agencies refusing to assist the AIP. The Court Evaluator written report also reflects that the husband posted pictures of the AIP’s decubitus ulcers on his website, reflecting impaired judgment. While victims of domestic violence do not lose the right to nominate a guardian of their choice and to have that choice seriously considered by the Court, the threshold duty of the Court is to appoint a fiduciary that will ensure the safety of the IP and meet the personal and property management needs of the IP. The Court finds the nominated husband as proposed Guardian to be unsuitable because his past abusive and neglectful conduct establish that the IP’s need to be safe and secure and properly cared for cannot be achieved by appointment of her husband. Based on the foregoing, it is now hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that GUARDIANSHIP CORPORATION, located at PO Box 723, Northport, NY 11768-0723, Telephone: 631-757-9035, be and hereby is appointed Personal Needs Guardian and Property Management Guardian of R.M., an Incapacitated Person, with the authority to exercise the following powers, which this Court finds to be the least-restrictive form of intervention consistent with R.M.’s functional limitations PROPERTY MANAGEMENT POWERS: a) Transact any banking business including establishing checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, collecting, negotiating, depositing, withdrawing, endorsing checks, drafts, or any negotiable instrument and any incidental powers related thereto. Open guardianship bank accounts in New York FDIC approved banking institutions that provide cancelled checks for review by the Court Examiner and the Court. b) Pay such bills as may be reasonably necessary to maintain Ms. R.M. c) Prosecute, defend, settle, and maintain any cause of action, arbitration, or civil judicial proceeding. Any settlement agreement is subject to the prior approval of the presiding judge. d) Marshall all income and assets, and the power to redirect and open any and all mail directed to Ms. R.M. e) Prepare, complete, and sign all tax returns, and pay the tax due as shown by said returns; appear on behalf of Ms. R.M. before Federal, State and Local taxing authorities; prosecute, defend and settle all tax claims, litigation, assessments and levies relating to any taxing authority or any type of tax. f) Establish, terminate, change or complete any transaction regarding pension retirement incentives, IRA/Keogh/SEP and similar plans, programs and annuities. g) Collect, prosecute, pay, and settle debts with creditors and debtors. h) Endorse, collect, negotiate, deposit and withdraw Social Security, pension or annuity benefit checks. i) Apply, negotiate, prosecute and settle actions, claims and arbitrations for government entitlements and benefits of all kinds with any governmental administration or agency. j) Convey, release or assign any interests of Ms. R.M. in intangible personal property, subject to the provisions of Mental Hygiene Law Section 81.21. k) Enter into reasonable contracts incidental to and necessary for the exercise of any of the other powers specifically granted to the property management guardian and personal needs guardian and to apply to the Court for any authority to enter into any other contracts. I) Create revocable or irrevocable or supplemental needs trusts of property which may extend beyond the incapacity or life of Ms. R.M. with the terms thereof to be approved by the court. m) Renounce or disclaim any interest by testate or intestate succession or by inter vivos transfer consistent and pursuant to §2-1.1l(c) of The Estate, Powers and Trust Law upon authorization by the court and subject to the provisions of Mental Hygiene Law Section 81.21. n) Authorize access to or release confidential records. o) Nominate from the Chief Judge’s Part 36 list to the Court, names for the appointment of attorneys, accountants, investment counselors, brokers and similar professionals concerning Ms. R.M.’s personal and real property, and to pay the necessary disbursements and fees for such individuals. All fees are subject to prior Court approval. p) Pay the funeral expenses for Ms. R.M. q) Hire home health aides, companions, social workers and other individuals necessary for the care and comfort of Ms. R.M. PERSONAL NEEDS POWERS: r) Determine who shall provide the personal care, health care and assistance for the personal needs and health care of Ms. R.M. s) Make decisions regarding social environment and other social aspects of the life of Ms. R.M. t) Make decisions regarding education of Ms. R.M. and participation in mental health programs and the necessary powers to implement such decisions. u) Authorize access to or release confidential medical records, any consent to release by the guardian shall be deemed the consent of R.M. for HIPAA purposes. v) Apply for government and private benefits. w) For decisions in hospitals as defined by subdivision 18 of §2994-a of the Public Health Law, act as the patient’s surrogate pursuant to and subject to Article 29-cc of the Public Health Law, and in all other circumstances, to consent to or refuse generally accepted routine or major medical or dental treatment subject to the decision-making standard in subdivision 4 of §2994-d of the Public Health Law, which provides: That the surrogate shall make health care decisions in accordance with patient’s wishes, including the patient’s religious and moral beliefs or if the patient’s wishes are not reasonably known and cannot with reasonable diligence be ascertained with reasonable diligence, in accordance with patient’s best interests, an assessment of the patient’s best interests shall include consideration of the dignity and uniqueness of every person, the possibility and extent of preserving the patient’s life, the preservation, improvement or restoration of the patient’s health or functioning, the relief of the patient’s suffering and any medical condition and such other concerns and values as a reasonable person in the patient’s circumstances would wish to consider. In all cases, the surrogate’s assessment of the patient’s wishes and best interests shall be patient-centered. Health care decisions shall be made on an individualized basis for each patient, and shall be consistent with the values of the patient, including the patient’s religious and moral beliefs, to the extent reasonably possible. The foregoing is subject to the limitation that the Guardian shall not have the power to consent to or authorize in any fashion, in the absence of further order of the Court, the administration of psychotropic or antipsychotic drugs or electroconvulsive therapy without the express consent of R.M. x) Choose the place of abode of Ms. R.M., provided that the choice of abode must be consistent with the findings pursuant to Section 81.15 of the Mental Hygiene Law, including the power to move Ms. R.M. to a nursing home or other residential facility as those terms are defined in the Public Health Law §2801, and consistent with the factors set forth in Section 81.22(a)(9) of the Mental Hygiene Law. And it is further, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to Section 81.20 of the Mental Hygiene Law the Personal Needs Guardian shall: exercise only those powers that the Guardians are authorized to exercise by order of the Court; exercise the utmost diligence and care when acting on behalf of R.M.; exhibit the utmost degree of trust, loyalty and fidelity in relation of R.M.; visit R.M. not less than four (or any other number as the Court may direct) times per year and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that with respect to the duty to visit R.M., irrespective of whether the Personal Needs Guardian reside with R.M., the Personal Needs Guardian shall submit to the Court Examiner, together with the annual report, proof of visitation and shall include a brief update on R.M.’s condition; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to Section 81.21 of Mental Hygiene law the Guardian shall: a) Afford R.M. the greatest amount of independence and self-determination with respect to property management in light of R.M.’s functional level, understanding and appreciation of her functional limitations and personal wishes, preferences and desires with regard to managing the activities of daily living; b) Preserve, protect and account for R.M.’s property and financial resources faithfully; c) Determine whether R.M.’s has executed a Will, determine the location of any Will, and the appropriate persons to notify in the event of the death of R.M., and in such event notify those persons; d) Use the property, financial resources and income of R.M. only maintain and support R.M.; e) At the termination of the appointment, deliver the property of R.M. to the persons or person legally entitled thereto; f) File with recording officer where any real property of R.M. is located the acknowledged statement required by Section 81.20(a)(6)(vi) of the Mental Hygiene Law; g) Perform all other duties required by law; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the proposed guardian shall submit for judicial approval the designation of the clerk to receive process and consent to act and proposed commission within 15 days from the date of the signing of the order and judgment. At the same time the proposed guardian shall serve upon the court examiner appointed herein copies of all the foregoing; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the Court examiner shall notify the guardianship referee immediately if the designation of the clerk to receive process and consent to act or the proposed commission are not timely received. The failure to file the designation of the clerk to receive process and consent to act or proposed commission in a timely manner may serve as a basis for removal of the guardian and the appointment of a different guardian; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that in accordance with the directive of Mental Hygiene Law Section 81.27, within five days after the Guardians have filed the above bond and designation, a commission shall be issued by the County Clerk stating the title of the proceeding and the name, address and telephone number of R.M., the incapacitated person, the name address and phone number of GUARDIANSHIP CORPORATION, located at PO Box 723, Northport, NY 11768-0723, Telephone: 631-757-9035, the guardian for personal needs and property management and the specific powers of each. If such commission has not been issued within the five day period the proposed guardian should contact the Clerk of the Guardianship Part; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Guardians file a certified copy of the commission with the Guardianship Clerk of the Court, and serve a copy of such commission on the Court Examiner within five days after issuance; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the duration of the Guardianship shall be indefinite, and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the authority of the property management Guardian shall extend to all property of R.M., both real and personal; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all persons are hereby directed to deliver to the property management guardian upon demand and presentation of a certified copy of the commission, all personal property of R.M. of every kind and nature which may be in their possession or under their control; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Guardians shall ensure that all bank account(s) and/or all brokerage accounts, and/or all trust accounts to be established hereunder shall provide duplicate monthly statements with copies of cancelled checks in imaged formats to the court examiner assigned herein. Proof of compliance with the foregoing shall be included as part of the ninety (90) day initial report. Is shall be the obligation of the Court Examiner to verify that this provision has been complied with by the Guardians and immediately report any non-compliance to the Court; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any Power of Attorney or Healthcare Proxy executed by R.M. are revoked; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the requirement of a bond is waived at this time, and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order and judgment shall direct that the guardian file a copy of the commission with the Court and serve a certified copy of such commission on the Court Examiner within five days of its issuance. The Court Examiner shall report to the guardianship referee whether the certified commission accurately reflects the authority granted to the guardian in the order and judgment; ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the guardian’s duties set forth in Section 81.20 of the Mental Hygiene Law include the responsibility of filing an initial report and annual reports, Section 81.30 requires that the initial report be filed with this Court no later than 90 days after such issuance of the commission to the guardian and that sections describes what must be included in the report, such as proof of completion of the guardian education requirements under Section 81.39 of the Mental Hygiene Law, copies of the report must also be served on the court examiner, court evaluator and should R.M. continue to reside in a facility to the chief executive officer of that facility, the same goes for annual reports; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that service of the initial report on R.M. is waived; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that JOSEPH HANSHE, ESQ., located at JOSEPH A. HANSHE PC, 116 GREENE AVE, SAYVILLE, NY 11782-2723, is appointed as the Court Examiner herein; and it further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Dr. Lynn Schaefer, Court Evaluator, provide a copy of her report to Court Examiner JOSEPH HANSHE, ESQ. within the next three days in order to provide her background on this matter; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any of the Court’s appointees and anyone seeking an award of fees from R.M.’s assets shall submit a detailed affidavit of services within the next 20 days from the date of this order; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that within 30 days VINCENT MESSINA, Esq. shall file a final report and account of his proceedings as Temporary Guardian of R.M., covering the period from the date of his qualification as Temporary Guardian to the date of the filing of the account, and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the submission of the affirmation of services based on actual hours worked quantum meruit for the court for determination of fees; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that VINCENT MESSINA, Esq. cause his accounts to be judicially settled, and that within 30 days, a notice of motion for the settlement thereof, together with a copy of this order, be served either personally or by mail upon R.M., presumptive distributees, any known beneficiaries, and all known creditors of R.M., Court Examiner and any other parties that are entitled to notice of “further proceedings” in this matter as directed in the original order and judgment or otherwise, at least twenty days prior to the return date of said motion, and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Personal Needs Guardian and Property Management Guardian GUARDIANSHIP CORPORATION, located at PO Box 723, Northport, NY 11768-0723, Telephone: 631-757-9035 shall apply for a plan of compensation payable from the assets of the IP; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any and all persons identified as interested parties in the original Order to Show Cause or subsequently identified as an interested party by the Court shall receive notice of R.M.’s death, the intended disposition of the remains of decedent, funeral arrangements and the final resting place of R.M. when that information is known or can be reasonably ascertained by the Guardians. This directive shall in no way preclude the guardians from providing such information to any and all persons that they deem appropriate, and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Personal Needs Guardian and Property Management Guardian GUARDIANSHIP CORPORATION, located at PO Box 723, Northport, NY 11768-0723, Telephone: 631-757-9035, shall complete the guardianship training program required pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law 81.39 before the time required for the filing of the initial report; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Carolyn Hill, Esq. Petitioner’s counsel, shall file a notice of entry and serve this order and judgment within thirty (30) days upon all parties; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Personal Needs and Property Management Guardian, and the Court Examiner shall appear for a conference with the Guardianship Referee, Jeffrey T. Grabowski, Esq., [(631) 740-3894] on November 16, 2022 at 9:30 A.M. at the Supreme Court, 400 Carleton Avenue, Central Islip, New York, Courtroom S-24, to monitor compliance. The Court may cancel the conference upon receipt of the Court Examiner’s written confirmation that the order and judgment has been issued, the commission has been issued, any Guardian education requirements have been satisfied, and the initial report has been served and filed as required; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the Personal Needs and Property Management Guardians, and the Court Examiner shall appear for a conference with the Guardianship Referee, Jeffrey T. Grabowski, Esq., [(631) 740-3894] on January 25, 2023 at 9:30 A.M. at the Supreme Court, 400 Carleton Avenue, Central Islip, New York, Courtroom S-24, to allow the Court to monitor compliance with the other directives in this decision. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Guardians and Court examiner appointed herein shall be granted access to the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System (NYSCEF) for the purposes of viewing and/or filing any, and all, electronic records related to this matter without the need for further Order of the Court. Such access shall also extend to any future Part 36 of the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR Part 36), and non-part 36 appointees, as may be appointed by the Court during the duration of this matter. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: September 27, 2022
