You are here: / / FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE A SUFFICIENT BASIS, I.E. STATEMENTS BY A CASEWORKER...
, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE A SUFFICIENT BASIS, I.E. STATEMENTS BY A CASEWORKER AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, TO DETERMINE NEW YORK HAD BEEN DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; MOTHER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judges should not have dismissed mother’s petition to modify custody solely on the basis of statements made by a caseworker and the attorney for the child indicating the child lived in New Jersey. The Second Department further found that Family Court did not adequately inform mother of the rights she was giving up by representing herself:

Pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified at article 5-A of the Domestic Relations Law, a court of this state which has made an initial custody determination has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over that determination until it finds that it should relinquish that jurisdiction because “neither the child” nor “the child and one parent” have a “significant connection” with New York, and “substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a[1][a] …).

Here, it is undisputed that the initial custody determination was rendered in New York. Nothing on the record before the Family Court established that it had been divested of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a(1). * * *

Moreover, the parent of any child seeking custody in any proceeding before the Family Court has the right to the assistance of counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][v]). A party may waive that right and proceed without counsel provided he or she makes a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel … . In order to determine whether a party has validly waived the right to counsel, a court must conduct a “searching inquiry” to ensure that the waiver has been made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently … . A waiver is valid where the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel … . Here, the Family Court did not conduct a sufficiently searching inquiry to ensure that the mother’s waiver of her right to counsel was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made … . Matter of Means v Miller, 2019 NY Slip Op 06088, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

You might also like
U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED.
PLAINTIFF NURSING HOME ALLEGED DEFENDANT “THIRD-PARTY” BREACHED OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT CONCERNING PAYMENT OF THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE RESIDENT; THE NURSING HOME’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Specifically Demonstrate When Area Where Fall Occurred Was Last Inspected or Cleaned Required Denial of Summary Judgment
ALTHOUGH THE PARTY TWICE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY WITHOUT LISTING THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AS AN ASSET, THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED AND THE ACTION WAS ADDED AS AN ASSET; AT THAT POINT THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE BECAME THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON THE PARTY’S INITIAL FAILURE TO LIST THE ACTION AS AN ASSET, DID NOT APPLY TO THE TRUSTEE (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Barred from Recovery Against Special Employer by Exclusivity Provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law
JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE ‘COMBAT BY AGREEMENT’ EXCEPTION TO THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONDITION ATTACHED TO THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT AND THE SALE OF ONE PARCEL BENEFITTED BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER; THEREFORE THE BUYER ALONE COULD NOT WAIVE THE CONDITION WHEN IT COULD NOT BE MET; THE BUYER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSURED, WHO WAS SEEKING UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS, DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY HER INSURER OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THE INSURER’S PETITION TO PERMANENTLY STAY ARBITRATION 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY... DEFINITION OF ‘PARENT’ IS THE SAME FOR PARENTAL ACCESS AND CUSTODY;...