You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE INFORMED WIFE OF HER RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL...
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE INFORMED WIFE OF HER RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR SHE WAS HAVING TROUBLE RETAINING AN ATTORNEY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering a new trial in this divorce-custody action, determined Family Court, given the wife’s difficulty in raising money to retain new counsel, should have informed her of her right to assigned counsel pursuant to Family Court Act 262:

… [T]he mother appeared in court, explaining that, although she had retained new counsel, he was unable to attend that day and, therefore, she requested the court to “extend” or “hold off” proceeding with the continuation … . Supreme Court denied the mother’s request for an adjournment, indicating that no notice of appearance had been filed by the mother’s replacement counsel and that it could not rely solely upon her statement that she may be represented by counsel going forward. Supreme Court then proceeded with the trial, informing the mother that, under the circumstances, she was going to have to proceed pro se.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that Supreme Court ever advised the mother of her rights pursuant to Family Ct Act § 262 (a). While we appreciate that the mother initially appeared with retained counsel and Supreme Court granted her a lengthy adjournment to obtain a new attorney, it was incumbent upon the court — particularly in light of the mother’s expressed need for several months to obtain the necessary retainer fee — to advise her of the right to assigned counsel in the event that she could not afford same … . In the absence of the requisite statutory advisement of her right to counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [v]) or a valid waiver of such right …, we find that the mother was deprived of her fundamental right to counsel… . DiBella v DiBella, 2018 NY Slip Op 03186, Third Dept 5-3-18

​FAMILY LAW (ATTORNEYS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE INFORMED WIFE OF HER RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR SHE WAS HAVING TROUBLE RETAINING AN ATTORNEY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, AMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE INFORMED WIFE OF HER RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR SHE WAS HAVING TROUBLE RETAINING AN ATTORNEY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
IF A PATIENT DOES NOT REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ON AN “EMERGENCY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION AND AN “INVOLUNTARY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION, IT IS ERROR TO COMBINE THEM; HOWEVER A PATIENT COULD REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING AND RESPONDENT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE COMBINED HEARING IN THIS CASE (THIRD DEPT).
Family Court Should Not Have Denied Nonparent’s Petition for Custody of a Child, and Awarded Custody to the Father and Mother, in the Absence of an Evidentiary Hearing
Criteria for Interpreting Ambiguous Terms in Separation Agreement
THE PROSECUTOR AND THE JUDGE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALFORD PLEA WOULD BE PREMISED ON HIS ABILITY TO APPEAL A GRAND-JURY EVIDENCE ISSUE; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HELD SUCH CONDITIONAL PLEAS ARE GENERALLY NOT ACCEPTED IN NEW YORK; MATTER SENT BACK TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE NOTE WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, IT SUFFICIENTLY MEMORIALIZED THE DEBT UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES.
PLAINTIFF, A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR, DID YARD WORK FOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER, INCLUDING SPREADING MULCH AND USING HIS OWN LADDER TO TRIM A TREE; PLAINTIFF POSITIONED THE LADDER ON THE MULCH; THE LADDER FELL OVER WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (THE MULCH) AND DID NOT SUPERVISE OR DIRECT PLAINTIFF’S TREE-TRIMMING WORK; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE 2008 FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED ON A DECEASED DEFENDANT AND WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY WHICH DID NOT TRIGGER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION, THEREFORE, IS NOT TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).
SPECULATIVE MEDICAL OPINION DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING CLAIMANT’S PRIOR EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR ASBESTOS-RELATED MESOTHELIOMA, DESPITE EVIDENCE OF EXPOSURE AT THE PRIOR EMPLOYER (THIRD 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

VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE... FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER...