You are here: / / PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN...
,

PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING.

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have informed pro se petitioner of his right to counsel in this order of protection proceeding:

Family Court committed reversible error when, during a brief hearing in this article 8 proceeding, it failed to advise the pro se petitioner that he had a right to the assistance of counsel of his own choosing, a right to an adjournment to confer with counsel, and a right to have counsel assigned if he was financially unable to obtain representation (Family Ct Act § 262[a][ii]…). Moreover, Family Court did not possess sufficient relevant information to allow it to make an informed determination as to whether the parties are or have been in an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) … . Further evidence is needed regarding the frequency of petitioner and respondent’s interactions … . Matter of Gustavo D. v Michael D., 2017 NY Slip Op 00246, 1st Dept 1-12-17

FAMILY LAW (PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING)/ORDER OF PROTECTION (FAMILY LAW, PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING)

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR MINIMUM WAGE, OVERTIME PAY, SPREAD-OF-HOURS PAY AND WAGE THEFT PREVENTION ACT CAUSES OF ACTION, INCLUDING LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS COOPERATIVE DURING HIS ARREST; HIS SUBSEQUENT RESISTANCE, THEREFORE, DID NOT CONSTITUTE “RESISTING ARREST;” INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Inexperience or Lack of Sophistication Does Not Toll the Statute of Limitations Re: the Discovery of Fraud/The Test for When the Fraud Should Have Been Discovered in an Objective One
A LEASE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CORPORATION AND DEFENDANTS (ONE OF WHOM WAS A MEMBER OF PLAINTIFF’S BOARD) WAS NOT VOTED ON BY A MAJORITY OF DISINTERESTED DIRECTORS AND WAS THEREFORE VOIDABLE UNDER BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 713(B); DEFENDANTS BREACHED THEIR FIDUCIARAY DUTY TO THE CORPORATION BY SUBLETTING THE LEASED PREMISES FOR A MUCH HIGHER RENT WITHOUT PLAINTIFF’S KNOWLEDGE (FIRST DEPT).
Concise Example of a Weight of the Evidence Review
Fiduciary’s Conflict of Interest Renders Transactions Voidable
Accident Occurred Within 15-Day Grace Period Allowed for Repair of Road Defects/City Could Not Be Held Liable
Notice of Claim Timely Served by an Unauthorized Method Deemed Valid/Motion to Renew Based Upon Information Known at the Time of the Original Motion Properly Heard in Exercise of Discretion

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DISCLOSURE OF SUBSTANCE OF DEFENSE EXPERT’S OPINION INADEQUATE, MOTION... HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY HAD DUTY TO DEFEND IN AN ACTION STEMMING FROM A...