Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County

Decided on April 25, 2026

Index No. LT-304809-24

Logan J. Schiff, J.

[*1]

Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219(a), of the papers considered in review of the motion by Dr. Rachel Gordon, court-appointed guardian ad litem for Respondent-tenant C.C., for an order directing Petitioner-landlord to pay her reasonable compensation for services rendered on behalf of her ward (mot. seq. 1): NYSCEF 28-30.

The court's decision and order on the motion is as follows:

DISCUSSION

In this nonpayment proceeding seeking possession of a rent-stabilized apartment, Respondent-tenant, C.C.'s, court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL), Dr. Rachel Gordon, moves for an order directing Petitioner-landlord to pay her $3,250 in reasonable compensation pursuant to CPLR 1204 for the time she expended defending her ward's interests.

Dr. Gordon is one of approximately 110 court-approved GALs handling Housing Court cases within New York City.^FN1 She was drawn from a list maintained by the New York State [*2]Office of Court Administration as part of the New York Housing Part guardian ad litem GAL program (GAL Program) "whose goal is to protect the rights and prevent the eviction of litigants who are unable to advocate for themselves due to age or mental health related challenges."^FN2 Dr. Gordon was appointed for the tenant of record, C.C. after her son, Respondent-undertenant S.C., advised the court that Ms. C. currently resides in a nursing home and lacks the mental and physical capacity to represent herself, necessitating a GAL appointment under Article 12 of the CPLR before entry of a judgment (see CPLR 1201 [mandating appointment of a GAL for any "adult incapable of adequately prosecuting or defending his rights"]; CPLR 1203 ["No default judgment may be entered against an adult incapable of adequately protecting his rights for whom a guardian ad litem has been appointed unless twenty days have expired since the appointment."]; Jamsol Realty, LLC v German, 46 Misc 3d 11 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015] ["A court may not shut its eyes to the special need of protection that such a litigant has."]; Fischer v Fischer, 21 AD3d 554 [2d Dept 2005]; Sarfaty v Sarfaty, 83 AD2d 748 [4th Dept 1981]).

Although summary eviction proceedings occur within the New York State court system (see RPAPL 701), neither the legislature nor the Office of Court Administration (OCA), the state agency charged with administering the courts, has apportioned any funds for GAL compensation in eviction cases. Instead, the sole source of remuneration for Article 12 GALs has historically come via the Human Resources Administration (HRA), a New York City social services agency, through a voluntary and, therefore, inherently flawed arrangement.

As of August 2023, HRA pays court-appointed GALs in Housing Court $1,050 per case.^FN3 However, HRA only compensates GALs on cases where Adult Protective Services (APS), a division within HRA that "provides services for physically and/or mentally impaired adults" and whose mission includes "help[ing] at-risk clients live safely in their homes"^FN4 is actively providing services to the person through an "open case."^FN5 Therein lies the problem, as APS is an [*3]agency with notoriously limited resources and chronic staffing shortages.^FN6 APS prioritizes cases where the referred person is at risk of imminent physical harm and declines for services a great number of referrals where a GAL is nonetheless manifestly needed prior to judgment. According to a recent report on the GAL Program prepared by the Housing Court Committee of the NYC Bar Association, "the GALs surveyed state[d] that only an average of 36% of wards are deemed APS eligible."^FN7 In other words, the majority of NYC Housing Court Article 12 GAL appointees are not paid by HRA or any other source, even though their appointment is often necessary to comport with due process.

In the present matter, because Respondent has been an occupant of a nursing home since the inception of the proceeding, APS declined to open a case based on its longstanding and typically inflexible policy of not accepting for services individuals "safely housed," whether in a nursing home, hospital, or rehabilitation facility. In APS's view, such individuals are not at risk of immediate homelessness even if they may aspire to return to their home and therefore have a vested interest in defending the eviction proceeding.^FN8 As a result, Dr. Gordon was unable to seek payment from HRA and now asks this court to direct Petitioner-landlord to pay her reasonable compensation for her time spent representing her ward's interests following the conclusion of the case.

While uncommon in Housing Court, a court "may allow a guardian ad litem, duly appointed pursuant to CPLR 1202, 'reasonable compensation for his services to be paid in whole or party by any other party'" (Bolsinger v Bolsinger, 144 AD2d 320 [2d Dept 1988], quoting CPLR 1204]). "A guardian whose services were beneficial and necessary to adverse parties is entitled to compensation" from such party (Abroon v Gurwin Home Care Agency, Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 31534[U] (Sup Ct, Nassau County 2012) citing Livingston v. Ward, 248 NY 193 [1928]; see also Haynes v Haynes, 83 NY2d 954 [1994] [affirming fees award where "the guardian ad litem contributed greatly to clarifying the issues and providing a framework for settlement."]). Conversely, it is generally not appropriate to require an adverse party to bear the cost of a GAL where such appointment did not inure to their benefit unless "the actions of such party generated unnecessary, unfounded or purely self-serving litigation that resulted in the [*4]appointment of a guardian" (In re Ault, 164 Misc 2d 272 [Sur Ct, New York County 1995], citing Matter of Board of Educ. v Ambach, 90 AD2d 227, affd 60 NY2d 758; Board of Education v Ambach, 90 AD2d 227 [3d Dept 1982]).

Here, following her appointment, Dr. Gordon visited the nursing home where Respondent resides and obtained a letter from the facility stating that Respondent is a "permanent resident" with no plans for a discharge (NYSCEF 14). Dr. Gordon further advised the court that, based on her visit to the home and investigation, Ms. C. was not seeking to retain her long-term rent-stabilized apartment and would not be contesting Petitioner's claim to possession, premised on the failure to pay rent due under an unexpired lease. As a result, the court ultimately directed the entry of a possessory judgment pursuant to CPLR 409(b) by order December 18, 2025.

Certainly, Dr. Gordon's prompt and diligent work aided the court in performing its duty to not shut its eyes to the needs of the disabled and infirm by allowing the needless eviction of a long-term rent-regulated tenant (see Resma Mtge. Corp v Jenkings, 115 AD3d 926 [2d Dept 2014]).^FN9 However, ensuring the protection of the needy, while a constitutional mandate (see 111-50 Realty Corp. v Melgar, 70 Misc 3d 981 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2020], citing Tucker v Toia, 43 NY2d 1, 7 [1977]; NY Const, art XVII, § 1), is not the obligation of a private petitioner-landlord or an element of a nonpayment proceeding. Nor is there any evidence in the record that this summary proceeding to recover possession, premised upon Respondent's undisputed failure to pay rent, was "generated [by] unnecessary, unfounded or purely self-serving litigation" such that Petitioner should be "held liable for compensating the GAL." (Matter of HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (Knox), 98 AD3d 300 [4th Dept 2012]). Accordingly, the court is constrained to deny Dr. Gordon's motion.

It must be noted that requiring GALs like Dr. Gordon to routinely provide their services pro bono undermines the effectiveness of the GAL Program and its ability to recruit and retain qualified GALs. Dr. Gordon, for her part, handles a high volume of complex matters in Queens Housing Court and has accepted appointments in dozens of cases before the undersigned in the last three years, many of which were time-consuming and uncompensated. She reliably makes the necessary effort to connect with her wards to assess their needs, even where it requires traveling throughout the borough to visit mobility- and hearing-impaired individuals. She also routinely goes the extra mile for her wards to ensure they are not needlessly evicted, fighting for adjournments on cases that were marked "trial ready" to secure legal counsel and advocating zealously for her wards at trial (see e.g. Hofgur LLC v D.A., 2026 NY Slip Op 50273 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2026]; Marine Terrace Preservation, L.P. v Bauseman, 2025 NY Slip Op 32733 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2025]).

Although Dr. Gordon is not the only person performing exceptional work as a GAL in Queens Housing Court, the truth is that she is an outlier and part of a group of typically two, and rarely more than three, active GALs on the OCA-approved list in Queens who reliably take [*5]"unpaid" cases and put in the necessary work to ensure their wards' interests are protected. The unfortunate reality of GAL Program, as currently constituted, is that many of the only available GALs lack the tools or wherewithal to adequately defend their wards' interests in connection with the complex array of high stakes cases encountered in Housing Court. A significant number do nothing more than attempt to call their clients by phone and will not make even one home visit to personally connect, a critical aspect of the work. Further exacerbating the situation, many GALs are hampered by a lack of reliable access to interpretation services, which are not offered by OCA outside of court appearances, resulting in their appearing in court without first making meaningful contact with their non-English-speaking wards to assess their goals and needs. And a smaller but non-negligible percentage of the OCA-approved GALs are entirely unqualified: routinely missing court appearances and providing little to no value beyond allowing the court to proceed with the eviction of individuals unable to defend themselves effectively on default.

Nor is the dire state of the GAL program limited to Queens, an observation the undersigned can comfortably make based on discussions with judges throughout New York City Housing Courts and prior experience as an attorney representing tenants in Brooklyn and Staten Island. As Judge Jimenez, a Housing Court judge sitting in Brooklyn, has aptly noted, all too often GALs serve no meaningful purpose beyond "a pro forma protection allowing the eviction process to go forward with all parties involved, including the court, complicit in allowing a fig leaf to cover up the inadequacy" (700 Brooklyn Realty LLC v Forsythe, 86 Misc 3d 1250 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2025]; see also Matter of Anderson Ave. Assoc. LP v Fuller, 238 AD3d 401 [1st Dept 2025]; 354 Chauncey Realty LLC v B.M., 86 Misc 3d 501 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2025]).

CONCLUSION

To the extent the GAL Program has struggled to maintain a reliable roster of GALs, this is unquestionably attributable to the lack of available funds for GAL compensation. Requiring court-appointed Article 12 GALs to work for free is unfair and untenable. The answer to the problem, however, is not found in offloading the cost onto the private sector through judicial fiat, which effectively amounts to an attempt to "judicially-fill[]" a gap in social services more appropriately addressed by the legislature (In re Smiley, 36 NY2d 433 [1976]; see also Unique People Servs., Inc. v Abramycheve, 2026 NY Slip Op 26024 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2026]). A more realistic solution, and the one espoused by the NYC Bar Association is that:

Instead of relying on APS assistance or the uncommon CPLR 1204 motion for payment, GALs should be compensated for every case in which they are appointed guardian. HRA should either be prevailed upon to provide funding for every case where the Court determines that a GAL is necessary, or the Court should work with City and State agencies and, in some cases, landlords, to identify and implement additional sources of funding. Standardizing payment across all cases will reduce the administrative burdens on GALs and ensure that they have resources to support their work on behalf of all their wards.^FN10

In the interim, this court can only hope that qualified GALs, such as Dr. Gordon, remain available to offer their services largely for free.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Dr. Rachel Gordon's motion for an order directing Petitioner to pay her reasonable compensation for services rendered as Respondent's court-appointed GAL is denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: April 25, 2026

Queens, New York

HON. LOGAN J. SCHIFF, J.H.C.