You are here: / / HERE DEFENDANT’S NON-LAWYER HUSBAND REPRESENTED HER AT THE FORECLOSURE...
, ,

HERE DEFENDANT’S NON-LAWYER HUSBAND REPRESENTED HER AT THE FORECLOSURE TRIAL; THE FACT THAT THE HUSBAND HAD A POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING HIM TO ACT ON HIS WIFE’S BEHALF DID NOT AUTHORIZE HIM TO PRACTICE LAW; ALTHOUGH REPRESENTATION BY A NON-LAWYER DOES NOT RENDER THE PROCEEDINGS A “NULLITY,” HERE THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY HER HUSBAND’S REPRESENTATION AND THE JUDGE ERRED BY NOT ALLOWING THE HUSBAND TO TESTIFY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the judgment of foreclosure and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was prejudiced by her non-attorney husband’s representation of her in the trial. Although the husband, John Chae, had a power of attorney authorizing him to act on his wife’s behalf, the power of attorney did not authorize him to practice law. In addition, Supreme Court erred by not allowing the husband to testify:

“‘New York law prohibits the practice of law in this State on behalf of anyone other than himself or herself by a person who is not an admitted member of the Bar, regardless of the authority purportedly conferred by execution of a power of attorney'” … . “The designation as an attorney-in-fact under General Obligations Law §§ 5-1502A-N does not confer upon a designated agent the right to provide representation as an attorney-at-law, and ‘cannot be read to displace the provisions of Judiciary Law § 478′” … .

In this case, none of the exceptions to Judiciary Law § 478 apply. Moreover, John Chae’s marriage to the defendant did not permit him to appear pro se on her behalf … . “As a general rule, the fact that a party has been represented by a person who was not authorized or admitted to practice law under the Judiciary Law—whether a disbarred attorney or a person practicing law without a license—does not create a ‘nullity’ or render all prior proceedings void per se” … . Here, however, the record demonstrates that the defendant was prejudiced as a result of being represented by an unauthorized attorney at the trial … . Further, the Supreme Court erred in precluding the defendant from testifying at the trial (see CPLR 321[a]). Ventus Props., LLC v Mo Chae, 2025 NY Slip Op 07429, Second Dept 12-31-25

 

You might also like
Review Criteria for Actions by Zoning Boards of Appeal
A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT RESPOND TO A NOTE FROM THE JURY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANSWER TO DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO REFLECT THE NEW THEORY (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE A SIDEWALK DEFECT DEVELOPED OVER TIME DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DEFECT AROSE UPON INSTALLATION, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT STARTED UNTIL 22 MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENT; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
REPORTS BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S CONVICTION REVIEW UNIT (CRU) EXONERATING CONVICTED PERSONS ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL); AN EXONERATED PERSON MAY WAIVE THE SEALING REQUIREMENT (CPL 160.50) AND CONSENT TO DISCLOSURE OF A REPORT; THE RELEASED REPORT HERE IS SUBJECT TO REDACTION DETERMINED IN AN IN CAMERA REVIEW BY A JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE FAILURE TO UPDATE THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE (SECOND DEPT).
A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION TO DISMISS AS OPPOSED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; HERE THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED DRUGS TO EXCESS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE... THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING ASSOCIATION WITH GANGS WAS STRICKEN BECAUSE...