original_1074565532-300x107There are many factors to be considered in connection with the appointment of a Guardian for personal needs and property management pursuant to Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law.  A recent post in the New York Probate Lawyer Blog discussed the requirement that clear and convincing evidence be presented before a Guardian is appointed.  A recent Guardianship case entitled Matter of Elias B. decided by Broome County Supreme Court Justice David Guy on June 30, 2021 highlights the many considerations a Court needs to review in a Guardianship case.

In Elias, the alleged incapacitated person (AIP) had been hospitalized but was now ready for discharge.  It appeared that the AIP was a developmentally disabled person who had lived in the community for a number of years and had received local social services assistance.  However, the AIP had been unable to maintain a permanent living situation, but could find his way to receive medical and social services assistance, despite his transient existence.  The Court found that the AIP could attend to some, but not all, of his activities of daily living.

It appears that as part of its discharge plan, the only housing facility that the hospital could find which would accept the AIP was located in New Jersey.  The AIP refused to go to live in this location and the hospital could not otherwise discharge him without an established living environment.  Thus, the hospital sought the appointment of a Guardian to assist with the AIP’s discharge and relocation.