Narrative Opinion Summary
The motion to vacate the ex parte order granting the appointment of Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) as guardian ad litem for Marion D. and Edward Z. is granted. According to CPLR 5704 (a), MHLS can be appointed in proceedings involving a patient as defined by 22 NYCRR 1023.1 (d), which pertains to individuals residing in licensed facilities for the mentally disabled or those for whom MHLS has been appointed counsel or court evaluator under Mental Hygiene Law article 81. However, Marion D. and Edward Z. are not considered "patients" under this definition, as they reside at Monroe Community Hospital, which is not classified as a facility for the mentally disabled. Additionally, no proceedings have been initiated under Mental Hygiene Law article 81. Consequently, MHLS's appointment as guardian ad litem is improper, leading to the vacating of the ex parte orders. The decision is affirmed by Judges Lawton, Callahan, Doerr, Balio, and Boehm. The order was filed on May 7, 1997.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appointment of Guardian ad Litem under CPLR 5704 (a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court vacated the ex parte order appointing MHLS as guardian ad litem, as the individuals were not classified as patients under the relevant legal definitions.
Reasoning: The motion to vacate the ex parte order granting the appointment of Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) as guardian ad litem for Marion D. and Edward Z. is granted.
Definition of 'Patient' under 22 NYCRR 1023.1 (d)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Marion D. and Edward Z. do not qualify as 'patients' because they reside in a facility not classified for the mentally disabled, and no relevant proceedings have been initiated.
Reasoning: However, Marion D. and Edward Z. are not considered 'patients' under this definition, as they reside at Monroe Community Hospital, which is not classified as a facility for the mentally disabled.
Impropriety of MHLS Appointment in Absence of Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appointment of MHLS as guardian ad litem was improper due to the absence of proceedings under Mental Hygiene Law article 81.
Reasoning: Additionally, no proceedings have been initiated under Mental Hygiene Law article 81. Consequently, MHLS's appointment as guardian ad litem is improper, leading to the vacating of the ex parte orders.
Judicial Affirmation of Ordersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision to vacate the ex parte orders was affirmed by the judges involved in the case.
Reasoning: The decision is affirmed by Judges Lawton, Callahan, Doerr, Balio, and Boehm.