New York Judge Orders Prominent Guardianship Company to Refund Elderly Woman
A New York judge has mandated a leading guardianship company in the city to refund thousands of dollars to an elderly woman due to the lack of care and oversight it was court-ordered to provide.
Supreme Court Justice Lee Mayersohn, in a decision dated August 8, determined that New York Guardianship Services (NYGS) billed Judith Zbiegniewicz monthly but delivered "minimal services, if any" over several years, including during critical times such as the coronavirus pandemic.
During this period, Zbiegniewicz, who was under guardianship for conditions related to depression and anxiety, reported that she and her husband experienced homelessness, lived in a city shelter, and ultimately secured affordable housing independently.
Zbiegniewicz’s experience with the state’s problematic guardianship system, spanning a decade, was highlighted in a ProPublica investigation earlier this year. The investigation underscored persistent issues within the system, including chronic delays, weak regulation, and insufficient oversight, failing to safeguard numerous aging and ill New Yorkers deemed unable to manage their own affairs.
This system disproportionately affects vulnerable wards, such as Zbiegniewicz, who lack friends or family to care for them, often referred to as "the unbefriended." The city relies on a network of nonprofits to care for this demographic. NYGS, presenting itself as one such entity, was appointed by the court as Zbiegniewicz’s guardian.
However, despite these claims, ProPublica revealed that NYGS, which caters to hundreds of wards, is not registered as a nonprofit with state and federal authorities.
For approximately a decade, the company drew funds from Zbiegniewicz’s bank account, even as she reported worsening living conditions, including bedbugs, rats, and lack of heating. Despite receiving monthly payments from her limited resources, NYGS did little to address these issues. Attempts to notify Mayersohn about the neglect were unproductive until Zbiegniewicz reached the judge’s attention through a letter and a hearing where she aired her grievances.
As a result of that hearing, Mayersohn ordered NYGS to return $5,400 to Zbiegniewicz for fees collected between January 2019 and July 2022, a period during which she essentially managed her own affairs outside the guardianship.
Additionally, the court directed the bank owning the infested Queens property where NYGS placed Zbiegniewicz to comply with a prior housing court settlement, which required them to pay her $5,000. If the bank fails to pay, Zbiegniewicz has the option to pursue the money in court, although she expressed doubts about whether it would be worth the effort and cost. The bank’s attorney did not respond to requests for comment.
In an interview, Zbiegniewicz conveyed satisfaction with the ruling and appreciation for being heard by the judge. She expressed a desire for NYGS to be held accountable for its actions.
“I got some kind of justice, but the justice would be if they would be taken out of guardianships completely because they do not do anything for the people,” she commented.
ProPublica’s investigation uncovered similar issues in over a dozen other cases where NYGS failed to meet the needs of individuals in their care. In one instance, a stroke patient was neglected in a nursing home, and in another, the company continued receiving payments for a ward who had left the country and subsequently died.
Sam and David Blau, who operate NYGS, and their attorney, did not respond to inquiries regarding the judge’s decision. Previously, Sam Blau described ProPublica’s coverage as “misguided, without full and proper context, filled with omissions and less than accurate information,” though he did not provide specifics or comment on individual cases.
Zbiegniewicz attributed the judge’s action partly to ProPublica’s investigation, noting the rarity of such interventions in New York’s problematic guardianship system. She acknowledged that her prolonged efforts, persistence, and the investigative reporting were critical in achieving this result, hoping it would foster broader changes.
“I’ve done what I could, I feel good about it, the judge heard, you wrote things,” she said. “Maybe somebody will see and maybe somewhere, down the line, somebody will do something about it.”
