Relates to the representation of individuals involved in guardianship proceedings pursuant to article 81 of the mental hygiene law
This bill amends section 722-c of the County Law to expressly include article 81 guardianship proceedings under the Mental Hygiene Law among the matters for which a court may authorize and compensate non-counsel services. In addition to the existing categories of criminal, family court, correction, and surrogate’s court matters, the bill would allow a court to appoint an eligible individual to perform the duties of a court evaluator or court examiner in article 81 cases when the person involved is financially unable to obtain those services.
The bill also clarifies that the court may determine reasonable compensation for these appointed individuals and direct payment for their services, subject to the existing rule that compensation above $3,000 per provider is allowed only in extraordinary circumstances. Claims for payment must still be supported by a sworn statement detailing time spent, services rendered, expenses, and any other compensation received in the same case. The bill takes effect 90 days after becoming law.
The bill would expand the scope of County Law § 722-c to cover court-appointed evaluators and examiners in adult guardianship proceedings under article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, aligning those proceedings with other categories already eligible for publicly authorized non-counsel services. Practically, it affects courts, appointed evaluators/examiners, and financially unable individuals in guardianship cases by providing a clearer statutory basis for appointment and compensation, while leaving the existing compensation cap and documentation requirements in place.
The available context suggests the bill is generally supportive and technical in nature, with no recorded opposition in the provided materials. It was introduced at the request of the Unified Court System, which indicates institutional support from the judiciary for clarifying payment authority in guardianship proceedings. The absence of votes or transcript debate suggests the measure was not especially controversial at this stage.
The main policy issue is compensation: the bill extends payment authority to court evaluators and court examiners in article 81 cases, which may raise cost concerns for the state or counties, although the bill preserves the existing extraordinary-circumstances cap above $3,000. Another possible point of concern is whether expanding publicly funded services in guardianship matters could increase administrative burdens on courts, but no specific objections are reflected in the provided record. The bill appears to be a targeted procedural fix rather than a broader substantive change.