Justice Arthur Diamond
The court questioned whether it was appropriate for a facility to petition solely for appointment of a special guardian of the property of an alleged incapacitated person (AIP) residing in the facility where the sole power was to complete the Medicaid application for the facility. The court answered in the negative, finding that a residential facility should not petition for appointment of a special guardian solely to seek Medicaid benefits when the patient was clearly incapacitated and needed a guardian of the person. The court also questioned when there was no health care proxy executed by the AIP if the Family Healthcare Decisions Act vitiated the need for a personal needs guardian. It answered in the negative also, finding the act was no substitute for the appointment of a guardian of the person under Mental Hygiene Law Article 81. The court concluded that AG was an incapacitated person, as defined under MHL §81.03, and was not able to provide for his own needs and property management. It ruled that a guardian of the person and a special guardian of the property should be appointed, noting the AIP’s son would act as the guardian of the person, and petitioner facility would serve as the special guardian of the property.