You are here: / / PROCEEDING LEADING TO THE REVOCATION OF APPELLANT’S ADJOURNMENT IN...
,

PROCEEDING LEADING TO THE REVOCATION OF APPELLANT’S ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) AND ADJUDGING HIM A PERSON IN NEED OF SUPERVISION (PINS) FATALLY FLAWED BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS NEVER TOLD OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the proceeding which led to the revocation of appellant’s Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) and adjudging him a person in need of supervision (PINS) was fatally flawed because appellant was never informed of his right to remain silent:

Although the appellant’s term of custody has expired by the terms of the order appealed from, the order is not academic in light of the enduring consequences which might flow from the finding that the appellant violated the terms of the ACD order … .

Family Court Act § 741(a) provides, in relevant part: “[a]t the initial appearance of a respondent in a proceeding and at the commencement of any hearing under this article, the respondent and his or her parent or other person legally responsible for his or her care shall be advised of the respondent’s right to remain silent” … . The failure to apprise a respondent of the right to remain silent constitutes reversible error, even if the respondent consents to the disposition in the presence of counsel … or fails to seek to withdraw his or her admissions based on the failure … .

Here, the Family Court never apprised the appellant of his right to remain silent—not at the initial appearance on the PINS petition, nor prior to accepting his admission to the allegations in the petition and entering the ACD order, nor at the fact-finding and dispositional hearing … , addressing the alleged violation of the ACD order. The court’s failure to advise the appellant of his right to remain silent cannot be considered harmless error … , as the court never advised the appellant of his right to remain silent at any time during the course of this proceeding or the original PINS proceeding. Thus, the order must be reversed … . Matter of Tyler D., 2018 NY Slip Op 07427, Second Dept 11-7-18

FAMILY LAW (PINS, PROCEEDING LEADING TO THE REVOCATION OF APPELLANT’S ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) AND ADJUDGING HIM A PERSON IN NEED OF SUPERVISION (PINS) FATALLY FLAWED BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS NEVER TOLD OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT (SECOND DEPT))/PERSON IN NEED OF SUPERVISION (PINS) (PROCEEDING LEADING TO THE REVOCATION OF APPELLANT’S ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) AND ADJUDGING HIM A PERSON IN NEED OF SUPERVISION (PINS) FATALLY FLAWED BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS NEVER TOLD OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FAMILY LAW, RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, PROCEEDING LEADING TO THE REVOCATION OF APPELLANT’S ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) AND ADJUDGING HIM A PERSON IN NEED OF SUPERVISION (PINS) FATALLY FLAWED BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS NEVER TOLD OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT (FAMILY LAW, PINS, PROCEEDING LEADING TO THE REVOCATION OF APPELLANT’S ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) AND ADJUDGING HIM A PERSON IN NEED OF SUPERVISION (PINS) FATALLY FLAWED BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS NEVER TOLD OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ENTITLING THE DEFENDANTS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S DEATH, THE GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY IS ALLOWED TO PAY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, BUT NOT CLAIMS UNRELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, FROM THE GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).
LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Arbitrator’s Award Which Did Not Resolve the Controversy Properly Vacated
FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VALIDATED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE INVALIDATED TWO SIGNATURES BECAUSE THE CANDIDATE WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATION, MADE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION AT A HEARING, THAT THE TWO SIGNATURES WERE INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
INCONSEQUENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE ELECTION LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
CAR CRASHING THROUGH SUPERMARKET DOORS WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING ACT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED TO SUPERMARKET AND LANDOWNER.

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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD AMEND ITS ORDER GRANTING A SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS... PETITIONER WAS A PARTY ALONG WITH DECEDENT IN SEVERAL ACTIONS WHICH RESULTED...