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
THE SOLE MEMBER OF AN LLC WHICH OWNS THE PROPERTY HAS AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY; AN INSURER WHICH ACCEPTS PAYMENT ON A POLICY AFTER LEARNING OF THE INSURED’S ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS WAIVES THE RIGHT TO RESCIND THE POLICY (SECOND DEPT).
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).
City Immune from Liability for Actions of Police Engaged in a Governmental Function–No Special Relationship with Plaintiff
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS SPEEDING AT THE TIME HE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR, WENT DOWN AN EMBANKMENT AND STRUCK A TREE, KILLING A PASSENGER, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “DANGEROUS SPEEDING;” THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE AND RECKLESS DRIVING CHARGES; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE’S QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES, GUIDANCE OF THE PROSECUTION, AND OBVIOUS BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH AN ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN ISSUED, NO JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WAS ENTERED; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS STILL VIABLE AND PLAINTIFFS COULD MOVE TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SENT A LETTER TO THE INSURED SHORTLY AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THE INSURED’S HOME REQUESTING THAT THE INSURED NOTIFY HER INSURER, THE INSURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED UNTIL IT RECEIVED THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SIX MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENT; THE INSURER PROPERLY DISCLAIMED COVERAGE ON THE GROUND IT HAD NOT BEEN TIMELY NOTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE, MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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...