Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

In re Joshua H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 18, 2011

80 A.D.3d 698; 914 N.Y.S.2d 914

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Vincent v. (Isler) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Asha R. (Tommy R.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Matter of Jon Z. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Goldstein v. Zabel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Uriel R. (Rondos) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
In re Frank C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Frank C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Eggleston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*699In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 for the appointment of a guardian for the personal needs and property management of Joshua H., an incapacitated person, nonparty Grace N., the former counsel to the guardian of the person and property of Joshua H., the former successor guardian of the person and property of Joshua H., and the former trustee of a supplemental needs trust established for the benefit of Joshua H., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated July 13, 2009, as imposed a surcharge upon her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

It is within the discretion of the Supreme Court to determine what, if any, compensation is due to a fiduciary of an incapacitated person or an attorney representing such a fiduciary (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.28 [b]; Matter of Isadora R., 5 AD3d 494, 495 [2004]). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in surcharging the appellant for all money taken by her, inasmuch as no compensation was due her in light of her failure to complete her duties.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. Florio, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.