Email:| Call: 516-415-0696
In response to COVID-19, our office is operating remotely. All inquiries and telephone messages will be responded to within 24 hours. Most consultations are now being conducted by telephone or by videoconference. Most new cases can be electronically filed at this time. All necessary documents can be provided by e-mail, through Dropbox or by mail. Please call our office or fill out the contact form, and we will reply to your inquiry.

NY Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act

care chain couple

Article 83 of the Mental Hygiene Law

On October 23, 2013, the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction  Act (“the Act”) was signed into law in New York State. The Act amended the Mental Hygiene Law to add a new article, Article 83, which is known as the “Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act”.

The Act provides a set of uniform rules that address jurisdiction and related issues in adult guardianship cases where multiple states are involved. Most of the states, including D.C. and Puerto Rico, have enacted similar rules.

Prior to the enactment of the Act, multi-state guardianship matters were problematic since guardianship orders and judgments are exempt from the full faith and credit of the U.S. Constitution. This meant that guardianship orders and judgments did not have to be recognized by another state. A guardian appointed by an out-of-state court would have to petition for guardianship in New York, even if the Incapacitated Person (the “IP”) resides in New York State.

Today, multi-state guardianship issues are not uncommon. These issues arise in matters involving “snowbirds”, who may be New York residents residing in Florida during the winter months; caregivers, who need to relocate sick family members into or out of New York; individuals, who may be utilizing out-of-state health care providers; individuals, who may wander into or out of New York, and elderly persons, who may be victims of “granny snatching” into or out of New York.

The Act’s Objectives

The Act is intended to: (1) identify one singular state court to adjudicate first time guardianship petitions; (2) establish a system for the transfer of existing guardianship appointments from one state to another; and (3) establish a system for the recognition and enforcement of guardianship orders of one state in another.

The Act’s Basic Provisions

The Act addresses three main issues that arise when multiple states are involved in an adult   guardianship matter: First, which state court has priority jurisdiction over a guardianship petition. Second, how can an existing guardianship matter can be transferred to another state.  Lastly, how can guardians enforce orders from one state in another state.


New York has jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of an individual who is a resident of New York or who simply is physically present in the state. Extensive and costly litigation over jurisdiction may result where the domicile of an “alleged incapacitated person” (an “AIP”) is difficult to determine. For example, this situation has arisen where the AIP lives for an equal amount of time in two different states or when it is unclear whether the AIP has the capacity to form an intent to change domicile. The Act now provides guidance for New York courts in determining whether they have primary jurisdiction over an AIP.

Primary jurisdiction is determined by three levels of priority:

First Priority – Home State: A “home state” is a state in which the AIP was physically present, including any period of temporary absence, for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately prior to the commencement of the guardianship proceeding.

Second Priority – Significant Connection State: A “significant connection state” is a state, other than the home state, with which the AIP has a “significant connection” other than mere physical presence, and in which substantial evidence concerning the AIP is available. To determine whether a state is a “significant connection state”, courts are to consider the following factors: (i) the location of the AIP’s family and other parties required to be notified of the guardianship proceeding; (ii) the length of time the AIP  was at any time physically present in the state and the duration of any absences; (iii) the location of the AIP’s property; (iv) the extent to which the AIP has other ties to the state, such as voting registration, filing of state or local tax returns, vehicle registration, driver’s license, social relationships, and receipt of services.

However, a “significant connection” state only has jurisdiction over an AIP if (a) the AIP does not have a home state or (b) the home state declined jurisdiction because it has found the “significant connection state” to be a more appropriate forum. Additionally, in consideration of cases where all parties are in agreement concerning which court should hear the case, a “significant connection state” may have jurisdiction where (a) no petition has been filed or pending in a home state or other “significant connection” state, (b) no objections to the court’s jurisdiction have been filed by a person required to be notified of the proceeding, and (c) the “significant connection state” determines that it is an appropriate forum. The issue of whether a state is an appropriate forum is determined by all relevant factors set forth in the Act, including (i) any expressed preference of the AIP; (ii) whether abuse, neglect, or exploitation of the AIP has occurred or is likely to occur, and which state could best protect the respondent from abuse, neglect, or exploitation; and (iii) the length of time the AIP was physically present in or was a legal resident of the state or another state.

Pursuant to the Act, once a court has jurisdiction, jurisdiction continues until the proceeding is terminated or the appointment or order expires by its own terms. Notwithstanding the priority rules, under Article §83.19 of the Act, special jurisdiction for a limited purpose is available in a New York court, even when it does not have priority jurisdiction. For example, a New York court would have special jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for a term no longer than 90 days for an AIP, who is physically present in the state and an emergency requires the appointment of such guardian.

Transfer of Guardianship to and from New York

Prior to enactment of the Act, in cases where a guardianship had been established and an AIP was to be moved to another state, the transfer of an existing guardianship was not generally available. Under the prior law, New York required that a new guardianship petition be commenced in New York. This resulted in added cost and time spent for the AIP because a redetermination had to be made as to the individual’s capacity, and whether the guardian to be appointed was appropriate. This also discouraged caregivers from moving an AIP to a better living arrangement, such as a locale that is closer to the caregiver. This cumbersome process also took time and attention away from the caregiver’s primary task of caring for the AIP.

The Act provides a streamlined procedure for the transfer of a guardianship from New York to another state. It also provides a set of procedures for the transfer of a guardianship from another state to New York State.

Registration and Recognition of Orders from Other States

Under the Act, New York courts can now recognize the authority of such guardian, who has been appointed in another state, for the limited purpose of assisting the guardian with the AIP’s property management within New York. This process is not in recognition of the out-of- state guardianship, but is merely a mechanism for the handling of financial matters in New York. Conversely, under Article §83.35 of the Act. for an AIP who is in New York and who does not have property in New York, his or her out-of-state guardian of the person can make decisions over his or her person by registering the guardianship in New York.

Benefits of the Act

The Act resulted in substantial benefits to New York and the parties in a guardianship matter involving multiple states. The uniform rules create an expeditious and predictable process to which AIPs and their caregivers can seek either initial guardianship appointment, the transfer of an existing guardianship, or New York’s recognition of an out-of-state order. The Act will certainly minimize the cost to the AIP.

The Act also helped to reduce incidences of elder abuse. Jurisdiction based merely on the physical presence of an AIP in New York often encouraged “granny snatching,” i.e., the unauthorized removal or retention of an elder person.

How Can an Elder Law Attorney Help You Avoid Guardianship?

We understand the guardianship process and we can help you to make sure your relative is taken care of and that his assets are not lost or devalued in the event of incapacity. We can provide assistance with the creation of a power of attorney and/or with the creation of living trusts so guardianship will not be the only option in the event of incapacity. Call us now toll-free at  (800) 363-3416 or contact us online to find out more about the assistance that we can offer.

For more information, download our Guardianship Planning Guide. A copy of the information above can be found on Pages 3 – 6.


Contact us today for a FREE consultation!