Judge Moves Guardianship Hearing to Woman's Bedside

A New York trial court judge took an unusual step in a guardianship proceeding late last month when she terminated an in-court proceeding and brought the court to the proposed ward's bedroom. The proceeding was meant to determine whether 93-year-old Valerie S. had freely chosen her attorney or whether she was under the undue influence of her son.  The judge sat on the bed.

Valerie S.'s daughter filed a guardianship proceeding, alleging that her mother was incapacitated and that her brother had transferred some of Valerie's assets into his name. A court evaluator tried to contact Valerie, but Valerie refused to speak to him. Bronx Supreme Court Justice Sharon Aarons ordered Valerie to appear at an initial hearing on the guardianship petition, but she did not show up. Instead, Attorney Lorraine Coyle appeared in court on behalf of Valerie to argue against the need for a guardianship.

Without a motion from either party, Justice Aarons determined that an in-home evaluation of the proposed ward was needed and stopped the in-court proceeding. The justice arranged for a van to transport her and her staff the six miles to Valerie's home. An hour after adjourning, the justice and other court officers and attorneys reconvened the hearing in Valerie's bedroom. According to an article in the New York Law Journal, due to the lack of furniture in the room, the justice was forced to sit on Valerie's bed along with the parties' attorneys and the stenographer.

The majority of the justice's opinion consists of the transcript of this meeting. Justice Aarons questioned Valerie about whether she had hired Ms. Coyle. Valerie's answers indicated that she wasn't clear what the guardianship proceeding was or whether she had signed an affidavit swearing that she hired Ms. Coyle on her volition. Based on the in-person evaluation, Justice Aarons determined that Ms. Coyle had not been chosen "freely and independently" and disqualified her from representing Valerie.

Click here to read the opinion.

To read the New York Law Journal article (registration required) about the case, click here