Supreme Court, Suffolk County

Decided on April 20, 2026

Index No. 634237/2025

Chris Ann Kelley, J.

[*1]

FACTUAL BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY :

On December 23, 2025, M.I. filed a verified petition seeking appointment of a guardian for his mother, C.I. the alleged incapacitated person (hereafter "AIP") under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law. The petition articulated several important facts related to the AIP, including:

1) The AIP worked for many years in the guidance department of East Meadow High School until she retired at age 62 in approximately 2001.

2) From 2001 until September 3, 2025, the AIP lived in two locations — [Address redacted], Manchester, New Jersey 08759 and [Address redacted], Naples, Florida 34114.

3) The AIP traveled to her Naples, Florida home in September 2024 and had several medical interventions requiring hospitalization at NCH Downtown Baker Hospital and was discharged each time to Solaris Healthcare Lely Palms for rehabilitation located at [Address redacted], Naples, Collier, FL 34113-2912.

4) The AIP allegedly told petitioner that she wished to relocate to New York.

5) On September 3, 2025, the petitioner signed paperwork to discharge the AIP from Solaris and brought her to his home in Moriches, New York.

6) C.I. resides with the petitioner at [Address redacted], Moriches, New York, 11955 since September 3, 2025. This location is within Suffolk County, State of New York.

7) After bringing the AIP to New York, the AIP informed petitioner that petitioner's siblings had been using AIP's money for their own advantage and petitioner began to investigate AIP's bank records.

8) On September 22, 2025, petitioner's siblings drove to New York and attempted to visit with the AIP, but a verbal dispute erupted and the petitioner filed a domestic incident report with the Suffolk County Police Department.

9) On September 15, 2025, petitioner attempted to file a guardianship proceeding in Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County, Chancery Division — Probate Part, in the State of New Jersey. New Jersey allegedly advised petitioner that New Jersey was not the proper venue and directed petitioner to file in New York.

10) On November 13, 2025, petitioner's siblings filed a petition for guardianship in Collier County, Florida — the file number is 25-GA-267.

11) The Collier County Probate Court appointed attorney Lance McKinney, Esq. to represent the AIP.

12) The AIP was described to have functional limitations such that a guardianship was necessary to protect her personal needs and property management needs.

13) Jurisdiction was invoked pursuant to MHL §81.04(a), on the basis that the AIP was a non-resident present in the state of New York.

On December 29, 2025, this Court signed an Order to Show Cause setting the matter for a hearing on February 2, 2026 at 2:15pm. The Order did not grant any temporary guardianship pending the hearing. The Order appointed Shannon Macleod as Court Evaluator and Therese Ebarb as Counsel to the AIP.

On January 27, 2026, Jennifer Drossman, Esq. filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of V.I. and A.M.G., the petitioner's siblings (and children of the AIP). Ms. Drossman also filed a letter requesting an adjournment of the hearing so the siblings could prepare a motion to intervene with a proposed cross-petition.

On January 27, 2026, Shannon Macleod, Esq. also filed a letter requesting an adjournment of the hearing so that she could complete her court evaluator investigation and prepare a final court evaluator report.

The matter was adjourned to March 6, 2026 at 9:30am.

On February 27, 2026, Jennifer Drossman, Esq. filed an Order to Show Cause to intervene on behalf of the petitioner's siblings with proposed cross-petition.

The proposed cross-petition articulated several important facts related to the AIP, including:

1) For the past 25 years, the AIP has been continuously cared for by A.M.G. or V.I., first as family support and then with more direct caregiving and supervision.

2) In 2014, the home located at [Address redacted], Naples, Florida 34114 was purchased and placed into the AIP and her husbands name and it was agreed that V.I. would pay all of the mortgage and carrying charges and would reside there and be able to provide increasing levels of care for his parents as they aged.

3) In 2021, V.I, and the AIP refinanced the mortgage for the Florida home, adding V.I. to the deed as a joint tenant with right of survivorship, with both of them remaining on the [*2]mortgage.

4) In 2022, M.I. found out that V.I. had been added to the deed on the Florida property and became enraged.

5) In November 2024, M.I. had law enforcement conduct several wellness checks on the AIP. He made several threats to V.I., including that he would "put a bullet in [V.I.'s] head," and "you're going to see what happens to you."

6) In August 2024, the AIP was examined and diagnosed with early-stage Alzheimer's disease.

7) At that point, the children retained an attorney to begin Medicaid planning, to update the AIP's last will and testament and to establish a trust.

8) The AIP was counseled to establish Florida as her primary residence for the Medicaid application due to the beneficial homestead designation rules.

9) The AIP then established Florida as her primary residence and filed for property tax relief in NJ based upon her Florida permanent residency.

10) The AIP was hospitalized for a urinary tract infection and in August 2025 was sent to Solaris Healthcare Lely Palms rehabilitation center.

11) On August 26, 2025, M.I. traveled to Florida and visited the AIP at the rehabilitation center

12) On August 27, 2025, 2 physicians treating the AIP determined that the AIP lacked capacity to make healthcare decisions for herself and scheduled a family meeting on September 4, 2025 to discuss her care.

13) On September 3, 2025 (a day before the scheduled family meeting), M.I. removed the AIP from Solaris rehabilitation center, informing the facility that he had the consent of all family members. He then brought the AIP to his New York home.

14) M.I. has been restricting or limiting contact between the AIP and her children V.I. and A.M.G.

15) On November 19, 2025, V.I. and A.M.G. filed a guardianship petition in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in Collier County, Florida for appointment of a plenary guardian of the person and property of C.I.

16) On November 26, 2025, M.I. was served with notice of the pending Florida guardianship matter.

On March 6, 2026, this Court issued a Decision on the Motion for intervention, granting the application to permit V.I. and A.M.G. to intervene as cross-petitioners.

INSTANT MOTION

On March 20, 2026, counsel for cross-petitioners filed the instant motion to dismiss the petition with an affirmation in support. The motion argued for dismissal on several bases: CPLR §3211(a)(4), MHL §83.17, MHL §83.23, and MHL §83.29.

The affirmation in support articulated several important facts related to the AIP, including:

1) On February 23, 2026, M.I.'s attorney in Florida filed a notice of appearance and appeared in the Florida guardianship action.

2) On March 5, 2026, the Florida court held a guardianship hearing regarding jurisdiction over the AIP and incapacity, after which it determined the State of Florida had jurisdiction and that the AIP lacked capacity. The Court appointed V.I. and A.M.G. co-guardianship of the AIP.

On March 30, 2026, M.I.'s counsel filed an affirmation in opposition to the motion for [*3]dismissal.

On April 3, 2026, counsel for cross-petitioners filed a reply affirmation in favor of the motion for dismissal.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

On December 29, 2025, this Court received the petition and proposed order to show cause. This Court was bound to follow the requirements of MHL Article 81 with respect to its receipt, review, and response to the petition for guardianship. Upon the filing of a petition, the court is required to sign an order to show cause setting the matter down for a hearing (See MHL §81.07(a) and §81.07(b) ("Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set the date on which the order to show cause is heard no more than twenty-eight days from the date of the signing of the order to show cause [ . . . ]") (Emphasis added)

Upon review of the December 23, 2025 petition, the petition contained all the requirements of MHL §81.08 ("Petition") and jurisdiction was satisfied under MHL §81.04(a)(2) ("Jurisdiction") in that the AIP was alleged to be "a nonresident of the state present in the state." Thus, even though the original petition mentioned that a guardianship petition had been filed in Florida, the Order to Show Cause was authorized under §81.07(b) subject to future applications to dismiss, if appropriate.

Petitioner's siblings have now filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(4), MHL §83.17, MHL §83.23, and MHL §83.29.

CPLR §3211(a)(4) Analysis

Pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(4), dismissal is warranted where "there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States; the court need not dismiss upon this ground but may make such order as justice requires." Thus, this section only applies when there is identity of parties, cause of action and when there is "another action pending." It is alleged by cross-petitioner that this ground for dismissal is established by the Florida action for Guardianship under File #:11-2025-MH-1243-0001-01. A copy of the Florida petition is attached as document #59. Analysis of whether the requirements of CPLR §3211(a)(4) are satisfied follows:

Parties : The parties to the actions are as follows:

New York Case - INDEX # 634237/2025

Petitioner - M.I.

Cross-Petitioner — V.I. and A.M.G.

Respondent — C.I.

Florida Case - File #:11-2025-MH-1243-0001-01

Petitioner — V.I. and A.M.G.

Respondent — C.I.

As shown above, there is not identity of parties in the actions, as M.I. is a party to the New York action, but not a party to the Florida action.

Actions : The cause of actions are as follows:

New York Case - INDEX # 634237/2025

"The appointment of a personal needs and property management guardian for my mother is the least restrictive form of intervention in light of her significant functional limitations." (New York Guardianship Petition, ¶42).

Florida Case - File #:11-2025-MH-1243-0001-01

"Petitioners seek appointment as plenary guardians of C.I." [ . . . ]. (Florida Guardianship Petition, ¶2).

As shown above, New York's narrowly tailored guardianship scheme, in which only those powers which are necessary are given to a guardian, and those powers which are not taken remain with the incapacitated person, is not the same as a plenary guardianship, in which all powers are invested in the guardian, with no powers remaining in the incapacitated person. Thus, there is not identity of the causes of action, as a plenary guardianship is not the same as a narrowly tailored guardianship.

Status of Florida action :

Florida Case - File #:11-2025-MH-1243-0001-01

"On March 5, 2026, the Florida Court held a guardianship hearing regarding jurisdiction over [sic] the [C.I.] and the AIP's incapacity. The court determined the State of Florida has jurisdiction and granted the [V.I.] and [A.M.G.] Co-Guardianship." (Affirmation in Support of instant motion, ¶15) (Emphasis added)

"However, as previously mentioned, there was a Guardianship petition filed in Florida, before the NY action on November 19, 2025 , which concluded on March 5, 2026 after a hearing in which the court granted, petitioners [V.I.] and [A.M.G.] guardianship of [C.I.] on the record. As of the date of filing of this motion, due to the decision being rendered just a few days ago, the final written Order and Judgment has not yet been signed by the Florida court, nor has the transcript been available. The court does show on its public filing system that a hearing was held and guardianship granted ." (Affirmation in Support of instant motion, ¶18) (Emphasis added)

"The Florida action concluded after trial on March 5, 2026 and determined that Florida had jurisdiction, that the AIP was incapacitated and awarded [A.M.G.] and [V.I.] guardianship of their mother, AIP [C.I.]." (Affirmation in Support of instant motion, ¶23) (Emphasis added)

As shown above, cross-petitioner concedes that the Florida action has been fully adjudicated and has "concluded." Therefore the fully resolved Florida case cannot be said to be "another action pending" pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4).

The Court determines that dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) is not appropriate as there is not identity of parties nor of actions and the Florida action is not pending. The application to dismiss on this basis is DENIED.

Article 83 Provisions Analysis

Dismissal is also sought pursuant to MHL §83.17, MHL §83.23, and MHL §83.29. Article 83 of the Mental Hygiene Law is New York's statutory authorization for the "Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act" (hereafter "UAGPPJA") to which New York is a signatory.

Under MHL §83.17 (by which cross-petitioner seeks dismissal), New York has jurisdiction to adjudicate a guardianship only under certain circumstances when multiple states are involved. Under that section, New York has jurisdiction when:

a. "[New York] is the respondent's home state;

b. on the date the petition is filed, [New York] is a significant-connection state and:

1. the respondent does not have a home state or a court of the respondent's home state has declined to exercise jurisdiction because this state is a more appropriate forum; or

2. the respondent has a home state, a petition for an appointment or order is not pending [*4]in a court of that state or another significant connection state, and before the court makes the appointment or issues the order:

i. a petition for an appointment or order is not filed in the respondent's home state;

ii. an objection to the court's jurisdiction is not filed by a person required to be notified of the proceeding; and

iii. the court in this state concludes that it is an appropriate forum under the factors set forth in section §83.23 of this article;

b. this state does not have jurisdiction under either subdivision (a) or (b) of this section, the respondent's home state and all significant-connection states have declined to exercise jurisdiction because this state is the more appropriate forum, and jurisdiction in this state is consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States; or

c. the requirements for special jurisdiction under section §83.19 of this article are met."

MHL §83.17(a)

Under MHL §83.17(a), jurisdiction is proper if New York is the AIP's "home-state." Here, it is clear that New York is not the AIP's "home state" as nobody asserts that it is. Cross petitioner and the State of Florida consider Florida to be her "home state," while petitioner asserts that New Jersey is her "home state." Therefore, New York undoubtedly cannot exercise jurisdiction under MHL §83.17(a).

As to whether the Court considers New York to be the AIP's home state, the Court consults MHL §83.03(e), which defines the term "home state" as follows:

"Home state" means the state in which the respondent was physically present, including any period of temporary absence, for at least six consecutive months immediately before the filing of a petition for a protective order or the appointment of a guardian of the person; or if none, the state in which the respondent was physically present, including any period of temporary absence, for at least six consecutive months ending within the six months prior to the filing of the petition." MHL §83.03(e)

Thus, the geographic location where the AIP was physically located in the 6 months preceding the Petition is essential to determination of the "home-state." On this issue, the Petition here was filed on December 23, 2025 and affirmed that:

"My mother has been residing with me at [Address redacted], Moriches, New York 11955 ("[Address redacted]") since on or about September 3, 2025. As outlined in greater detail below, prior to residing with me, my mother was a short stay placement at Solaris Healthcare Lely Palms for rehabilitation located at [Address redacted], Naples, Collier, FL 34113-2912 ("Solaris")" (Petition, ¶7)

Separately, the Petition affirmed that the AIP had lived in Florida continuously from 2024 until she was removed to New York (See Petition, ¶11)

Based upon the above, this Court determines that pursuant to MHL §81.03(e), the AIP's "home-state" is the state of Florida.

MHL §83.17(b)

Under MHL §83.17(b), jurisdiction is proper if New York is a "significant-connection" state and a petition has been in the AIP's home state filed but an objection to New York's exercise of jurisdiction has not been filed by a person required to be noticed of the proceeding.

As to whether the Court considers New York to be the AIP's "significant connection state," the Court consults MHL §83.03(m), which defines the term "significant-connection state" as follows:

"Significant-connection state" means a state, other than the home state, with which a respondent has a significant connection other than mere physical presence and in which substantial evidence concerning the respondent is available." MHL §83.03(m)

Thus, the actual connection between New York and the AIP must be "significant" and the connection cannot be based on "mere physical presence." On this issue, petitioner affirmed that the AIP worked for many years in the guidance department of East Meadow High School in New York until she retired at age 62 in approximately 2001 and thereafter left New York to live in New Jersey and Florida. To the extent that the AIP lived and worked in New York more than 25 years ago until she retired from her employment, this Court determines that pursuant to MHL 81.03(m), New York is a "significant-connection state" to the AIP.

Beyond the need to establish that New York is a "significant-connection state," jurisdiction under MHL 83.17(b) requires both that "(i) a petition for an appointment or order is not filed in the respondent's home state" and that (ii) an objection to the court's jurisdiction is not filed by a person required to be notified of the proceeding and that both of those jurisdictional conditions-precedent fail. First, a petition for appointment was filed in the respondent's home state of Florida (File #:11-2025-MH-1243-0001-01). Second, an objection to this Court's jurisdiction was filed by a person required to be noticed of the proceeding (documents #54 and 55). Therefore, New York cannot exercise jurisdiction under MHL §83.17(b).

MHL §83.17(c)

Under MHL §83.17(c), jurisdiction is proper if "the respondent's home state and all significant-connection states have declined to exercise jurisdiction because this state is the more appropriate forum, and jurisdiction in this state is consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States." Here, it is undisputed that Florida (which this Court determines is the AIP's home-state Supra) has exercised jurisdiction and in fact adjudicated a guardianship proceeding, appointing a plenary guardian under Court supervision. Therefore, New York cannot exercise jurisdiction under MHL §83.17(c).

MHL §83.17(d)

Under MHL §83.17(d), "special jurisdiction" is authorized only for certain actions listed in MHL 83.19, specifically to "appoint a guardian of the person in an emergency [MHL §83.19(a)(1)]," "issue a protective order with respect to a real or tangible personal property located in [New York]" [MHL §83.19(a)(2)], and "appoint a guardian [ . . . ] subject to a guardianship [ . . . ] for whom a provision order to transfer the proceeding from another state has been issued [ . . . ]" [MHL §83.19(a)(3)]. However, it is undisputed that there has been no request for "special jurisdiction," and the relief permitted under MHL §83.19 is not sought by the petition. Therefore, New York cannot exercise jurisdiction under MHL §83.17(d).

As shown above, New York has no jurisdiction over this multi-state guardianship matter, under any of the provisions of MHL §83.17 ("Jurisdiction"). This Court therefore GRANTS the application for dismissal pursuant to MHL §83.17.

MHL §83.23

However, even assuming arguendo that New York had jurisdiction pursuant to MHL §83.17, it could "decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines at any time that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum" pursuant to the factors listed in MHL§83.23:

"1. any expressed preference of the respondent;

2.whether abuse, neglect or exploitation of the respondent has occurred or is likely to occur, and which state could best protect the respondent from the abuse, neglect or [*5]exploitation;

3.the length of time the respondent was physically present in or was a legal resident of this or another state;

4.the distance of the respondent from the court in each state;

5.the financial circumstances of the respondent's estate;

6.the nature and location of the evidence;

7.the ability of the court in each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present evidence;

8.the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the proceeding; and

9.if an appointment were made, the court's ability to monitor the conduct of the guardian or conservator." MHL§83.23(c).

This Court has considered all of the listed factors and determines that New York is not an appropriate forum and declines to exercise its jurisdiction over this petition. Thus, pursuant to MHL§83.23(b), the Court dismisses the proceeding.

MHL §83.29

MHL §83.29 establishes the required conduct of New York courts when guardianship applications are filed in multiple states, depending upon whether New York has jurisdiction under MHL §83.17 (Discussed Supra).

Where there is no jurisdiction pursuant to MHL §83.17 (as this Court describes above), the New York court cannot proceed until determining whether the other state has accepted jurisdiction. Here, both parties concede that Florida has taken jurisdiction.

Movant cross-petitioners affirm that Florida Courts have taken jurisdiction:

"The Florida action concluded after trial on March 5, 2026 and determined that Florida had jurisdiction , that the AIP was incapacitated and awarded [A.M.G.] and [V.I.] guardianship of their mother, AIP C.I.." (Doc. 55, ¶23) (Emphasis added)

However, petitioners also affirm that Florida Courts have taken jurisdiction:

"On March 5, 2026, with less than 24 hours' notice the Collier County Court proceeded with a guardianship hearing, determined that it had jurisdiction , determined that [C.I.] was an incapacitated person, and appointed cross-petitioners as guardians." (Doc. 76, Pg. 5) (Emphasis added)

As there is no dispute that Florida has determined it has jurisdiction, the Court must comply with the remainder of MHL §83.29(b):

"If the court in the other state has jurisdiction, the court in this state shall dismiss the petition unless the court in the other state determines that the court in this state is a more appropriate forum." (MHL §83.29(b)) (Emphasis added)

Pursuant to MHL §83.29(b), as Florida has jurisdiction and there no indication of any relevant determination that New York is a more appropriate forum, this Court must dismiss the proceeding.

Wherefore, and for the reasons stated above:

The application for dismissal pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(4) is DENIED;

The application for dismissal pursuant to CPLR §83.17 is GRANTED;

The application for dismissal pursuant to CPLR §83.23 is GRANTED;

The application for dismissal pursuant to CPLR §83.29 is GRANTED;

As the matter is dismissed for the reasons described above, to the extent that court-appointees or any other party seeks compensation for services rendered in connection with this [*6]matter, they are directed to file an affirmation of services to be compensated as directed by further order of this Court.

Dated: April 20, 2026

Hon. CHRIS ANN KELLEY, A.J.S.C.