CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2003

In re Department of Social Work of Beth Israel Medical Center

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted a guardianship petition for an appellant under Mental Hygiene Law article 81. The appellant, an incapacitated person, through her counsel Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS), demanded a jury trial, but the lower court denied it, conducting a preliminary hearing and finding a prima facie case for guardianship. On appeal, the order was unanimously reversed. The appellate court found that the appellant was improperly denied her statutory right to a jury trial and an opportunity to develop a factual record, citing procedural errors. The matter was remanded for a jury trial to properly ascertain the facts regarding the necessity of a guardian.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonMental Hygiene LawJury TrialDue ProcessProcedural ErrorAppellate ReviewBeth Israel HospitalMental HealthDementia
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Dameris L.

Cruz Maria S. filed a guardianship petition for her intellectually disabled daughter, Dameris L., in 2009. Dameris later married Alberto R. and became pregnant, leading to a complex dispute between Cruz and Alberto over Dameris's care. Following mediation, Cruz and Alberto were appointed co-guardians. The family relocated to Pennsylvania due to housing issues, and the court eventually terminated the guardianship, noting Dameris's progress and the robust support network she developed. The decision emphasized the constitutional principle of "least restrictive alternative" and international human rights advocating for "supported decision making" over "substituted decision making" for persons with disabilities.

Supported Decision MakingGuardianship TerminationIntellectual DisabilitiesDue ProcessLeast Restrictive AlternativeHuman RightsUN Convention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesSCPA Article 17-AMental Hygiene Law Article 81Parental Rights
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Mark C.H.

This case addresses whether New York's SCPA article 17-A, governing guardianship for persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities, meets constitutional standards without requiring periodic reporting and review. The facts involve Mark C.H., an adult with profound autism and mental retardation, for whom a $3 million trust existed but whose guardians (petitioner, his late mother's attorney, and a corporate bank) initially failed to use funds for his benefit, leading to suboptimal care. The court, applying the Mathews v Eldridge test and considering international human rights norms, found that the significant infringement on a ward's liberty interests necessitates periodic oversight. Consequently, the court held that article 17-A must be read to include a requirement for yearly reporting and judicial review for guardians of the person. The guardianship for Mark C.H. was granted to the petitioner with this new yearly reporting obligation.

GuardianshipDue ProcessMental RetardationDevelopmental DisabilitiesSCPA Article 17-APeriodic ReviewWard's RightsTrust Funds MismanagementMedical Care AccessConstitutional Law
References
23
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kover

Attorneys Burton Citak and Donald L. Citak appealed orders that imposed sanctions and denied legal fees related to an article 81 guardianship proceeding for Eva Dworecki, an alleged incapacitated person. The attorneys were sanctioned for frivolous conduct, including making misrepresentations and false statements in court filings and arguments, and accusing the court of misconduct, despite previously consenting to the guardianship. The appellate decision, in this concurring opinion by Tom, J.P., found ample support for the Supreme Court's finding that the attorneys' conduct warranted sanctions. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to determine the appropriate costs, reduce the award to judgment, and set reasonable legal fees for the Citak firm's representation of Dr. Dworecki prior to the frivolous filings.

SanctionsAttorneysGuardianshipArticle 81Frivolous ConductAppellate ReviewProfessional MisconductLegal FeesCostsCourt Orders
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2007

In re Kurt T.

Respondent, suffering from a stroke, had initially granted his cousin, the petitioner, a durable power of attorney and made her his sole beneficiary. After revoking these and appointing a neighbor, petitioner sought to appoint a guardian for respondent's person and property under Mental Hygiene Law article 81. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding insufficient evidence of incapacity, but ordered respondent to pay 80% of the combined legal and court evaluator fees. On cross-appeal, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the guardianship petition but modified the fee apportionment, ruling that the petitioner must pay her own legal fees due to evidence of avarice and improper actions, while upholding the respondent and petitioner sharing the court evaluator's and respondent's court-appointed counsel's fees.

GuardianshipIncapacityMental Hygiene LawPower of AttorneyHealth Care ProxyFiduciary DutyFee ApportionmentCross-AppealsAppellate ReviewFinancial Exploitation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Am

Following an initial guardianship proceeding where AM sought to be appointed guardian for AT, who was declared incapacitated, the court appointed TT as personal needs guardian and Frank G. D’Angelo, Jr. as property management guardian on April 2, 2007. AM subsequently filed a motion to reargue, seeking continued access to AT, permission to remain in AT's East Atlantic Beach home with gratuitous transfers, and attorney's fees. The court, in this opinion, re-evaluated its prior interpretation of Mental Hygiene Law § 81.16(f) and granted AM an award of $16,000 in counsel fees from AT's estate. The court also indicated willingness to entertain a schedule for AM's contact with AT, but adjourned the application regarding the real property and gratuitous transfers, pending further submissions and an accounting from AM regarding his management of AT's affairs and the sale of her Beekman Place property.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonReargument MotionMental Hygiene Law Article 81Property ManagementPersonal Needs GuardianFiduciary DutySubstituted JudgmentCounsel FeesEstate Planning
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2014

In re Cooper

The case concerns a petition for guardianship over Joseph G., an alleged incapacitated person (AIP), heard by Justice Sharon A.M. Aarons on October 31, 2014. Joseph G., a 72-year-old man diagnosed with early-stage dementia, was admitted to St. Barnabas Hospital after becoming disoriented and unable to find his way home. Testimony from social workers at St. Barnabas Hospital and Westchester Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing, as well as Joseph G. himself, revealed his memory impairments, inability to manage finances, and difficulty securing suitable housing. Despite Joseph G.'s initial claims of no memory issues, he ultimately consented to a limited guardianship. The court granted the petition, appointing United Guardianship Services as the guardian of Joseph G.'s person and property for an indefinite duration, with specific powers related to health insurance, asset management, abode, medical decisions, and financial affairs, deeming these the least restrictive intervention necessary.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonDementiaPersonal Needs GuardianProperty GuardianMental Hygiene LawFunctional LimitationsConsent to GuardianshipLeast Restrictive InterventionAsset Management
References
1
Case No. 526722
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2019

Matter of Persons v. Halmar Intl., LLC

Claimant Matthew Persons appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by exaggerating his condition and failing to disclose volunteer firefighter activities, leading to disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as it was based on speculation, surmise, and mischaracterizations of claimant's activities and medical records. The court noted that claimant was forthcoming about his volunteer work and that video surveillance did not conclusively contradict his reported injuries. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawFraudExaggerated ConditionVolunteer Firefighter ActivitiesWage Replacement BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyPsychiatric DisabilityVideo SurveillanceRemittal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Francis M.

This is an appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court in Columbia County concerning a guardianship proceeding. The Supreme Court had granted James M.'s motion to remove Bernard M. as coguardian of their brother, Francis M., an incapacitated person. Bernard M. and James M. were initially appointed coguardians in 1997, but disagreements arose over Francis M.'s care, particularly regarding Bernard M.'s allegedly demeaning treatment. The Supreme Court removed both brothers as guardians, finding neither suitable, and appointed standby guardian Joann M. Bernard M. appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for his removal and an error in appointing Joann M., but the appellate court affirmed the judgment, deferring to the trial court's credibility determinations.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonRemoval of GuardianCoguardianBest InterestMental Hygiene LawJudicial DiscretionStandby GuardianAppellate ReviewFamily Dispute
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,891 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational