New York Law Review

Tag: Incompetency Proceedings

  • In re Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241 (1976): Right to Counsel for Alleged Incompetents During Adjudication

    In re Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241 (1976)

    An alleged incompetent person has the right to representation by personal counsel throughout the entire incompetency proceeding, including the right to appeal the initial determination of incompetency.

    Summary

    This case addresses the right to counsel for an individual facing incompetency proceedings. The New York Court of Appeals held that an alleged incompetent retains the right to representation by personal counsel, even after an initial adjudication of incompetency, specifically for the purpose of appealing the incompetency determination. The court reasoned that denying this right would severely limit the alleged incompetent’s access to justice, as a guardian ad litem or committee may not adequately represent the individual’s wishes regarding an appeal.

    Facts

    Two nieces of Olga Aho, an 85-year-old woman, initiated proceedings to have her declared incompetent. A guardian ad litem was appointed. Attorneys who had represented Aho for 15 months prior to the proceedings demanded a change of venue to Schenectady County, where she was residing. The guardian ad litem submitted a report concluding Aho was incompetent and recommended a jury trial. The attorneys representing Aho filed a formal motion for change of venue, which was opposed by the guardian ad litem. The motion was denied, and the matter was set for trial.

    Procedural History

    The attorneys for Aho appealed the denial of the change of venue motion. The Appellate Division denied a stay of the trial. Following a jury verdict, Aho was adjudicated incompetent. Her attorneys appealed, seeking to bring up the intermediate order denying the change of venue. The petitioners moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the attorneys lacked authority post-adjudication. The Appellate Division initially denied the motion but later dismissed the appeals. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the dismissal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether attorneys who represented an alleged incompetent in proceedings which resulted in the adjudication of her incompetency had authority to prosecute the appeal from such adjudication and therein to seek review of the denial of the motion for change of venue.

    Holding

    Yes, because an alleged incompetent person has a right to counsel throughout the entire proceeding, including the right to appeal the determination of incompetency, and the denial of the motion for change of venue necessarily affected the final judgment and was therefore reviewable on appeal.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied heavily on Carter v. Beckwith, 128 N.Y. 312, which recognized the right of an alleged incompetent to legal representation even when the attorney’s efforts are unsuccessful. The court reasoned that depriving a person of liberty and property through an incompetency adjudication requires significant safeguards. Denying the right to appeal with personal counsel would limit the alleged incompetent to a single judicial consideration, which is unacceptable given the gravity of the matter. The court emphasized that a committee or guardian ad litem might not always act in accordance with the wishes of the incompetent. As stated in the opinion, “[I]t is highly important for the protection of the rights of the party that he should be afforded all reasonable facilities for the prosecution of the inquiry…” The court found that the venue issue underlay all that followed, including the transfer of control over the incompetent’s property, and review of that determination, with the aid of counsel, was a significant right. The court clarified that while it sustained the authority of the attorneys to prosecute the appeals, it expressed no view on the attorneys’ right to compensation, directing attention to Carter v. Beckwith, regarding the assessment of legal fees against the incompetent’s property. The Court concluded that the intermediate order denying the motion for change of venue necessarily affected the final judgment because a reversal of that order would strike at the foundation on which the final judgment was predicated, leading to a vacatur of the judgment and re-submission of the issue in a court where venue might properly be laid.

  • In re Schley, 31 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968): Proper Venue for Incompetency Proceedings

    In re Schley, 31 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

    In proceedings to declare incompetency, the proper venue is the judicial district where the alleged incompetent resides.

    Summary

    This case concerns the proper venue for initiating proceedings to declare a person incompetent. The Appellate Division held that the proceeding must be maintained in the judicial district where the alleged incompetent resides, emphasizing the statutory requirement outlined in Mental Hygiene Law § 101, subd. (2). The court found that the initial papers filed were contradictory regarding the alleged incompetent’s residence, necessitating further inquiry. Ultimately, the court reversed the lower court’s order and remitted the proceeding to the Supreme Court, New York County, with instructions to transfer it to the Tenth Judicial District (Suffolk County), where the alleged incompetent resided.

    Facts

    The record indicated that the alleged incompetent resided in Suffolk County. Despite this, a proceeding to declare him incompetent was initiated in New York County. Documents within the moving papers referenced the alleged incompetent’s Suffolk County residence multiple times. The initial papers filed for the order to show cause contained contradictory information about his residence, leading to uncertainty about the appropriate venue.

    Procedural History

    The proceeding was initially brought in the Supreme Court, New York County. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division reviewed the lower court’s decision regarding the venue. The Appellate Division determined that the proceeding was improperly venued and reversed the order. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, with instructions to transfer the proceeding to the Tenth Judicial District.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a proceeding to declare an individual incompetent must be maintained in the judicial district where the alleged incompetent resides, as mandated by Mental Hygiene Law § 101, subd. (2), even if the initial papers filed contain contradictory information regarding residency.

    Holding

    Yes, because the statute requires that a Supreme Court proceeding to declare incompetency be maintained in the judicial district of the residence of the incompetent.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court based its decision on the clear statutory mandate of Mental Hygiene Law § 101, subd. (2), which dictates that incompetency proceedings must be held in the judicial district of the alleged incompetent’s residence. The court noted that the submitted papers contained contradictory information regarding the residence, however, other instruments referred to in the moving papers repeatedly referenced the alleged incompetent’s residence in Suffolk County. The court cited several prior cases, including Matter of McKitterick, Matter of Schley, and Matter of Porter, to support its holding. The court stated, “In such circumstances the statute requires a Supreme Court proceeding be maintained in the Tenth Judicial District.” The court also addressed the issue of allowances for services performed in good faith under prior orders, stating that the Special Term in the Tenth District has the discretion to make such allowances. Finally, the court ruled that the existing committee should continue its duties under the supervision of the Supreme Court, Tenth Judicial District, until a determination of incompetency is made and a new committee is appointed or the current committee is continued by the court with jurisdiction. This ensures continuity in the management of the alleged incompetent’s affairs during the transition.