You are here: / / MOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY...
, ,

MOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother should have been advised of her right to counsel in this custody proceeding:

“Family Court Act § 262 provides certain parties to particular Family Court proceedings with a statutory right to counsel. If the party in question falls within one of the enumerated subdivisions thereto, he or she must be advised by the court, before proceeding, that he or she has the right to representation, the right to seek an adjournment to confer with counsel and the right to assigned counsel if he or she cannot afford to retain counsel” … . The deprivation of a party’s fundamental right to counsel in a custody or visitation proceeding requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party’s position … .

Here, the mother clearly fell within one of the enumerated subdivisions of Family Court Act § 262 because she was the respondent in a custody modification proceeding. Therefore, the Family Court should have advised the mother of her right to counsel. Matter of Follini v Currie, 2020 NY Slip Op 08062, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

You might also like
PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS ALLEGING NEW INJURIES WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Can Not Recover Under Her Own Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Policy When Her Recovery Exceeded the Limit of that Policy
THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FILED A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE WHICH WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET A DEADLINE FOR A DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).
NO PRESUMPTION THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD ARE SERVED BY PLACEMENT WITH A FAMILY MEMBER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (2ND DEPT).
Criteria for Common Carrier Liability for Injury Caused by a Sudden Stop Explained (Not Met Here)
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR SENTENCING; HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT SENTENCING WAS THEREFORE VIOLATED, REQUIRING REMITTAL FOR RESENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT 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

MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE PARENTAL ACCESS SCHEDULE SHOULD NOT HAVE... THE PETITIONER, A PROBATIONARY POLICE OFFICER CHALLENGING HIS TERMINATION, RAISED...