Matter of James A. McG. (Robinson)

Matter of James A. McG. (Robinson) 2009 NY Slip Op 09663 [68 AD3d 1118] December 22, 2009 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

In the Matter of James A. McG., an Alleged Incapacitated Person. Catherine M. Robinson, Appellant; Ralph M. Randazzo, Nonparty Respondent.

—[*1] Catherine M. Robinson, Cambridge, Massachusetts, appellant pro se.

Ralph M. Randazzo, Huntington, N.Y., nonparty respondent pro se.

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian for the person and property of James A. McG., an alleged incapacitated person, the petitioner appeals from a money judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Sgroi, J.), entered January 2, 2008, which, after a hearing, and upon an order of the same court dated June 12, 2007, and an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court dated July 17, 2007, is in favor of Ralph M. Randazzo and against her in the sum of $4,375, for legal services rendered as a court evaluator.

Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal dated September 11, 2007 is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the money judgment entered January 2, 2008 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the money judgment entered January 2, 2008 is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by reducing the award in favor of Ralph M. Randazzo and against the petitioner for legal services rendered as a court evaluator from the sum of $4,375, to the sum of $1,458.33, representing a one-third share of the fee for legal services rendered as a court evaluator; as so modified, the money judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, the order and judgment dated July 17, 2007 is modified accordingly, and the order dated June 12, 2007 is vacated.

Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate for the petitioner to pay a one-third share of the fee for the legal services performed by the court evaluator in this matter, rather than the entire amount of the fee (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.09 [f]).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.