N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Mental Hygiene / TITLE General Provisions / ARTICLE Proceedings For Appointment of a Guardian For Personal Needs or Property Management
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 81.15 (2026)

Findings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 81.15 Findings.
  (a) Where the court determines that the person agrees to the
appointment and that the appointment is necessary, the court shall make
the following findings on the record:
  1. the person's agreement to the appointment;
  2. the person's functional limitations which impair the person's
ability to provide for personal needs or property management;
  3. the necessity of the appointment of a guardian as a means of
providing for personal needs and/or property management for the person;
  4. the specific powers of the guardian which constitute the least
restrictive form of intervention consistent with the person's functional
limitations; and
  5. the duration of the appointment.
  (b) Where the petition requests the appointment of a guardian to
provide for the personal needs for a person alleged to be incapacitated
and the court determines that such person is incapacitated and that the
appointment is necessary, the court shall make the following findings on
the record:
  1. the person's functional limitations which impair the person's
ability to provide for personal needs;
  2. the person's lack of understanding and appreciation of the nature
and consequences of his or her functional limitations;
  3. the likelihood that the person will suffer harm because of the
person's functional limitations and inability to adequately understand
and appreciate the nature and consequences of such functional
limitations;
  4. the necessity of the appointment of a guardian to prevent such
harm;
  5. the specific powers of the guardian which constitute the least
restrictive form of intervention consistent with the findings of this
subdivision;
  6. the duration of the appointment; and
  7. whether the incapacitated person should receive copies of the
initial and annual report.
  (c) Where the petition requests the appointment of a guardian for
property management for the person alleged to be incapacitated, and the
court determines that the person is incapacitated and that the
appointment of a guardian is necessary, the court shall make the
following findings on the record:
  1. the type and amount of the property and financial resources of the
person alleged to be incapacitated;
  2. the person's functional limitations which impair the person's
ability with respect to property management;
  3. the person's lack of understanding and appreciation of the nature
and consequences of his or her functional limitations;
  4. the likelihood that the person will suffer harm because of the
person's functional limitations and inability to adequately understand
and appreciate the nature and consequences of such functional
limitations;
  5. any additional findings that are required under section 81.21 of
this article;
  6. the necessity of the appointment of a guardian to prevent such
harm;
  7. if so, the specific powers of the guardian which constitute the
least restrictive form of intervention consistent with the person's
functional limitations and the likelihood of harm because of the
person's inability to adequately understand and appreciate the nature
and consequences of such functional limitations;
  8. the duration of the appointment; and
  9. whether the incapacitated person should receive copies of the
initial and annual report.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: In re Rhodanna C.B., 36 A.D.3d 106 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Rhodanna C.B., 36 A.D.3d 106 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006). · cites it 3× “09 [d]), and to provide the court with a written report and recommendation regarding the petition to appoint a guardian (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.09 [c] [5]). Moreover, the alleged incapacitated person has the right to counsel (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.”
In re Buffalino, 39 Misc. 3d 634 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “Buffalino was appointed guardian (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.15). In January of 2012, Ms.”
In re the Appointment of a Guardian for Chaim A.K., 26 Misc. 3d 837 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2009). “Unlike an article 81 proceeding, where the court is obligated to make specific findings on the record and detail the specific powers granted to the guardian (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.15), the court in an article 17-A proceeding simply makes a decree appointing a guardian of the…”
In re Chase, 264 A.D.2d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1999). “No factual findings attended the court’s order as required by Mental Hygiene Law § 81.15. It is evident, however, that Supreme Court accepted the conclusions of the court evaluator and determined not only that Ms.”
In re Ollie D., 30 A.D.3d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006). “Although the Supreme Court made the appropriate findings of fact pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.15 concerning, inter alia, the necessity for the appointment of a guardian, it failed to make sufficient findings on the record with respect to its determination to appoint a…”
In re Wogelt, 223 A.D.2d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996). “]), a statement of the functional limitations of the AIP, the necessity of the appointment of a guardian to prevent harm, the specific powers of the guardian, the duration of the appointment, the type and amount of property of the AIP, the specific powers of the guardian which…”
In re Arnold O., 226 A.D.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1996). “The consent order was entered after the effective date of Mental Hygiene Law article 81 and, therefore, according to petitioners, Supreme Court erred in appointing Towne as respondent’s guardian without making any of the findings required by Mental Hygiene Law § 81.15 (b).…”
In re Johnson, 172 Misc. 2d 684 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997). “02 (b) of the Mental Hygiene Law and issued the find *689 ings contemplated by Mental Hygiene Law § 81.15 (b) and (c). The court appointed petitioners as coguardians of the person and property of their aunt and dismissed the cross petition filed by William B.”
In re Mary J., 290 A.D.2d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2002). “Supreme Court concluded that respondent was an incapacitated person within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 81.15 and followed the recommendation of the court evaluator in appointing Harold and Patricia as coguardians.”
In re J.M., 13 Misc. 3d 582 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006). “29 of this article dealing with life sustaining treatment; the guardian shall make treatment decisions consistent with the findings herein pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.15 and in accordance with the person’s wishes, including the person’s religious and moral beliefs, or if…”
In re Mildred Jeraldine C., 14 A.D.3d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2005). “on the ground that the incapacitated person expressed a desire for the appellant to manage her personal and property affairs. James B. is the incapacitated person’s nephew and Joanne B.”
In re Hoffman, 288 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2001). “Supreme Court erred in appointing petitioner as respondent’s personal care and financial guardian without conducting a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11. Further, the court failed to make the requisite findings (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.