You are here: / / FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT...
, ,

FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING RESULTING IN HIS COMMITMENT TO THREE MONTHS IN JAIL; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father did not receive effective assistance of counsel in this child support proceeding which committed father to three months in jail for violation of the child support order:

We agree with the father that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at a hearing on the mother’s petition for violation of an order of child support. In support proceedings such as this one, “the appropriate standard to apply in evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance is the meaningful representation standard”… . Here, the father’s defense at the hearing was that because of a back injury, he was unable to continue working as a mail carrier beginning in January 2018 and that, prior to obtaining a new position at the post office in March 2019, he searched for different work. Notably, despite being advised on multiple occasions that the father was required to provide a financial disclosure affidavit, tax forms, proof that he was diligently searching for employment, and certified medical records, counsel failed to procure the father’s medical records or provide the court with any relevant financial documentation. The father’s counsel also failed to call any witnesses to testify as to the effects of the father’s back injury, subpoena his treating physician, or obtain a medical affidavit. The Family Court made specific reference to the lack of any credible medical testimony, financial disclosure affidavit, tax returns, or proof of a job search in its determination that the father failed to refute the mother’s prima facie showing of willfulness. Counsel’s failure to obtain relevant medical information or to procure financial and job search records that may have supported the father’s contention constituted a failure to meaningfully represent the father, and he is entitled to a new hearing on the violation petition … . Matter of Miller v DiPalma, 2020 NY Slip Op 00140, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

You might also like
Forcing Appellant to Proceed Without Counsel in a Family Court Act Article 8 Action Required Reversal of Order of Protection
ALTHOUGH A JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PROHIBIT A PARTY FROM BRINGING ANY FURTHER PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION, HERE FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION; FATHER HAD NEVER FILED FRIVOLOUS PETITIONS OR FILED PETITIONS OUT OF ILL WILL OR SPITE (SECOND DEPT). ​
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT.
PLAINTIFF, AN INNOCENT PASSENGER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSSING DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AS AGAINST HER (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE INTERIOR OF THE CAR FOR MARIJUANA WAS JUSTIFIED, THE FORGED CREDIT CARDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND SIEZED; THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT THE CARDS WHICH INDICATED THEY WERE CONTRABAND UNDER THE “PLAIN VIEW” DOCTRINE; THE COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE CRITERIA FOR WARRANTLESS SEARCHES UNDER THE NYS CONSTITUTION IS WORTH CONSULTING (SECOND DEPT).
A PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY); BUT A PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER CANNOT BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6) FOR CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT BY THE PLAINTIFF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
​ THE DISCHARGED LAW FIRM HANDLED THE PERSONAL INJURY CASE FOR TWO YEARS; ALTHOUGH THE FIRM DID NOT SUBMIT ANY TIME RECORDS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO AWARD THE DISCHARGED FIRM A PORTION OF THE CONTINGENCY FEE AFTER THE CASE SETTLED (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

PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT SIGNATORIES TO CONTRACTS WHICH REQUIRED ARBITRATION OF WAGE-UNDERPAYMENT... PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF AN ORAL CONTRACT REGARDING REPAYMENT...