The application by petitioner Crystall Serrant for an order pursuant to C.P.L.R. 1211 and 22 NYCRR 202.67(f), for a partial withdrawal of $6,500.00 from the trust of her daughter, A.D., is hereby denied.

This is the third application for the same request filed by petitioner within a span of two weeks. Petitioner seeks $1,150.00 for mattresses from the Salvation Army; $2,500.00 for a 2001 Ford Explorer from Horatio Cano; $1,948.00 for two months rent; and $902.00 for bunk beds from Rooms to Go.

The infant, now aged 9 years, sustained personal injuries on August 28, 2008 when she was struck by defendants' vehicle. The July 6, 2010 infant's compromise order authorized the settlement of A.D.'s claims in the total amount of $25,000.00. After payment of attorney's fees, a total balance of $16,667.00 was deposited at Ridgewood Savings Bank "for the sole use and benefit of the infant...."

By order dated July 18, 2011, this court authorized the withdrawal of $10,000.00 from the infant's funds. The following four checks were issued: 1) $1,372.88 payable to "Target" for room furnishings; 2) $359.57 payable to "Enterprise" for a rental van; 3) $7,622.56 payable to "Bentley Manor/Concepts 21 Delk" for rent; and 4) $644.99 payable to "Rooms to Go" for bunk beds. Although the check payable to Bentley Manor/Concepts 21 Delk was used, the three other checks were never used. Petitioner provides no explanation as to why the three checks, totaling $2,377.44, were never used as intended.

By order dated July 19, 2013, this court denied petitioner's application for a partial withdrawal for failure to demonstrate compliance with the July 18, 2011 order. The July 18, 2011 order directed petitioner to file paid receipts for the authorized expenditures with the clerk [*2]of the court within forty-five (45) days of the date of the order. On July 25, 2013, this court declined to sign an order for a partial withdrawal due to insufficient documentation for the items requested and failure to comply with the July 18, 2011 order. On July 30, 2013, petitioner filed the instant application.

Petitioner asserts that she is an unemployed single mother of six children with no source of income. She also asserts that she only receives food stamps. Recently, her husband allegedly abandoned the family, sold the family vehicle, and moved to Pennsylvania. She maintains that she is unable to take A.D. to her daily physical therapy sessions.

In support of her application, petitioner submits a bank statement from Ridgewood Savings Bank dated July 12, 2013, a letter dated September 17, 2011 from Ridgewood Savings Bank enclosing three unused checks, a rent ledger dated May 29, 2012 from ECI Group, three black and white photographs of a vehicle, a lease contract from Venterra Realty Management dated July 8, 2013, and a computer screenshot of a bunk bed from Rooms to Go. No documentation was provided with respect to the proposed purchase of mattresses from the Salvation Army.

22 NYCRR 202.67(f) lists the items that must be included in a petition for the expenditure of the funds of an infant. 22 NYCRR 202.67(g) provides that "[n]o authorization will be granted to withdraw such funds, except for unusual circumstances, where the parents are financially able to support the infant and to provide for the infant's necessaries, treatment and education." Moreover, an application for the expenditure of the infant's funds for his or her necessities must set forth sufficient facts to allow the court to determine that the infant's parents are financially unable to provide for them. Matter of Marmol, 168 Misc 2d 845 (Sup Ct, NY County 1996).

It is the parents' obligation to provide for the infant's necessities. The funds held in trust for the infant are to compensate the infant for the injuries he or she sustained. See, Gilchrist v. Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 28 Misc 3d 1230(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51558(U) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2010); In re Louis, 21 Misc 3d 1126(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 52246(U) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2008); Caban v. Lonkey, 53 Misc 2d 171 (Civ Ct, NY County 1967); DeMarco v. Seaman, 157 Misc. 390 (Sup Ct, Queens County 1934). "This court is the guardian of [this] child's funds and when the child reaches [eighteen], he has a right to expect to receive the money awarded to him for his injury with interest and not a bundle of court orders showing that his funds were spent for ordinary necessities of life which others were obligated by law to furnish to him." Gaffney v. Constantine, 87 N.Y.S.2d 131, 131 (Sup Ct, Queens County 1949).

This court finds petitioner's application insufficient to support the depletion of the infant's funds. If granted, the infant would be left with a balance of only $993.45. There are too many lingering questions and inconsistencies with the petition concerning the proposed expenditures. Although this court is sympathetic to petitioner's plight, this court cannot in good conscience grant the instant request.

The lease submitted is for an apartment located in the "Reflections on Sweetwater" community. Sweetwater Apartments are luxury apartments with amenities including, a pool, a [*3]car wash, outdoor grills, and gourmet kitchens. There is no evidence to show why the infant requires such amenities and why her funds should be used to pay two months of rent for her siblings, one of whom is twenty years of age. This court also notes that the lease agreement is signed by petitioner's adult daughter, A.R., and only lists three authorized occupants, the lessee, A.A.D., and A.D.D. The lease curiously makes no mention of petitioner or her remaining three children. Petitioner has also failed to explain how she expects to pay for utilities or any other costs of maintaining an apartment. Similarly, with respect to the purchase of a vehicle, petitioner fails to explain how she expects to pay for gas, maintenance, and automobile insurance.

In addition, the September 17, 2011 letter from Ridgewood Savings Bank indicates that the bank returned three checks issued pursuant to this court's July 18, 2011 order to petitioner. The letter reads in pertinent part that " because the account is a CD, additional funds may not be deposited into the [infant's] account until it has reached its maturity date. Therefore, in order to deposit the funds, a new account would have to be opened for your daughter." There is no indication that the checks, totaling $2,377.44, were ever deposited in any account. What happened to the $2,377.44?

Petitioner's application also indicates that she was denied social security benefits. There is no proof to demonstrate that 1) petitioner applied for such benefits and 2) social security benefits were denied. Furthermore, this court questions what efforts were made, if any, to contact local agencies to inquire about receiving emergency assistance or housing subsidies.

Accordingly, petitioner's application for an order authorizing a partial withdrawal of the infant's funds is denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: August 5, 2013

ENTER:

________________________

J.S.C.