Opinion
March 10, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.).
The 1996 order and judgment was a proper exercise of discretion in view of the evidence clearly indicating that appellant could not attend to his daily needs alone and was uncooperative and abusive with home care workers (see, Matter of Harriet R., 224 A.D.2d 625; Matter of Claiman, 169 Misc.2d 881, 885). Under the circumstances of this case, where both the personal guardian and the property guardian were discharged after a second hearing, we find that appellant was not prejudiced by failure, if any, of the hearing court to comply fully with Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11 (e). We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ. [As amended by unpublished order entered May 7, 1998.]