You are here: / / FAILURE TO APPOINT NEW COUNSEL IN THE THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING, AFTER RELIEVING...
,

FAILURE TO APPOINT NEW COUNSEL IN THE THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING, AFTER RELIEVING FATHER’S PRIOR COUNSEL, VIOLATED FATHER’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

The Second Department determined Family Court’s failure to appoint new counsel for father after relieving father’s prior counsel in this modification of custody proceeding deprived father of his right to counsel:

​

Under the circumstances presented, where the Family Court granted assigned counsel’s motion to be relieved, refused to assign the father a new attorney, and then compelled the father to choose between representing himself or having his petition dismissed, the Family Court violated the father’s right to be represented by counsel … . The father neither forfeited his right to counsel nor knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to counsel … . Moreover, the mere fact that the court granted the motion of the father’s first assigned counsel to be relieved did not serve to extinguish the father’s right to have another attorney assigned to represent him … . Accordingly, upon granting the motion of the father’s assigned counsel to be relieved of his assignment, the Family Court should have assigned the father new counsel … . Matter of Rosado v Badillo, 2017 NY Slip Op 05096, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

FAMILY LAW (ATTORNEYS, FAILURE TO APPOINT NEW COUNSEL IN THE THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING, AFTER RELIEVING FATHER’S PRIOR COUNSEL, VIOLATED FATHER’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, FAILURE TO APPOINT NEW COUNSEL IN THE THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING, AFTER RELIEVING FATHER’S PRIOR COUNSEL, VIOLATED FATHER’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW , ATTORNEYS, FAILURE TO APPOINT NEW COUNSEL IN THE THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING, AFTER RELIEVING FATHER’S PRIOR COUNSEL, VIOLATED FATHER’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, FAILURE TO APPOINT NEW COUNSEL IN THE THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING, AFTER RELIEVING FATHER’S PRIOR COUNSEL, VIOLATED FATHER’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL)

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH A JUROR CONCERNING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).
Foreign Corporation’s Sole Residence for Venue Purposes Is the County Designated In Its Filed Application to Conduct Business in New York State
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A BANK ROBBERY ONE MONTH AFTER THE CHARGED MURDER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX TO FILL IN A GAP IN THE EVIDENCE OR EXPLAIN A RELATIONSHIP WITH A WITNESS OR TO SHOW A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT; A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL ANOTHER WITNESS UNDER THE “OPENING THE DOOR” THEORY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MISLEADING TESTIMONY WHICH NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED (SECOND DEPT).
Damages for “Loss of Fetus” Under Insurance Law 5102 Are Not Available When the Baby Is Born Alive
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REARGUE MERELY REPEATED HER EARLIER ARGUMENTS AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE COURT HAD OVERLOOKED OR MISUNDERSTOOD FACTS OR LAW; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Inadequate Excuse for Delay In Answering Complaint—Motion to Vacate Default Judgment Should Have Been Denied
City’s Possession of Property Seized Upon Arrest, But Which Was No Longer Needed by the People in Connection with the Case, Was Held by the City as a Bailee—the Bailment Did Not Originate in a Contractual Relationship—Therefore the One-Year-Ninety-Days General Municipal Law Statute of Limitations, Not the Six-Year Contract Statute of Limitations, Applied—Action Was Time-Barred
DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF INSTEAD OF AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWING IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION (WATER ON THE FLOOR IN FRONT OF A VEGETABLE DISPLAY WITH MELTING ICE) (SECOND DEPT).

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

PARTY SUBJECT TO THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY... STANDING EVIDENCE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION...