URBAN PATHWAYS, INC. v. LUBLIN

Appellant failed to present evidence tending to show that she was incapable of either prosecuting or defending her rights, or that plaintiff actively concealed any possible mental disability with which she might have been afflicted at the time this action was commenced. Thus, the IAS Court properly refused to consider appointing a guardian ad litem to represent her interests ( compare, e.g., Sarfaty v. Sarfaty, 83 A.D.2d 748).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.