You are here: / / COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO FATHER’S ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSIGNED...
, ,

COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO FATHER’S ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM FATHER’S FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, FATHER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new hearing, determined father was deprived of is right to counsel in a contempt proceeding stemming from his failure to pay child support:

A respondent in a contempt proceeding before the Family Court “has the right to the assistance of counsel,” including “the right to have counsel assigned by the court” if “he or she is financially unable to obtain the same” (Family Ct Act § 262[a]). “Where a party indicates an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel” … . “The deprivation of [a parent’s] fundamental right to counsel requires reversal, without regard to the merits of [his or] her position” … .

We agree with the father’s contention that he was deprived of his right to counsel. After the Support Magistrate adjourned the hearing for the express purpose of allowing the father to retain counsel, the father appeared at the next hearing date without counsel and informed the Support Magistrate that he could not afford to hire an attorney because he had lost his job following the last court date. The Support Magistrate should have inquired into the father’s current financial circumstances, including his expenses, to determine whether he had become eligible for assigned counsel … . After the matter was referred to the Family Court, the court should have inquired into the father’s financial circumstances, including his expenses, to determine whether he was eligible for assigned counsel in light of his contention that he could not afford to retain an attorney because he was unemployed … . Although the court later assigned the father an attorney, the court failed to provide the “attorney a reasonable opportunity to appear,” as the court assigned the attorney midway through the final court appearance, after the fact-finding hearing had concluded, after the Support Magistrate had made its credibility and factual findings, and after the court had decided to incarcerate the father … . Indeed, the court denied the assigned attorney’s request for an adjournment … . Matter of Worsdale v Holowchak, 2019 NY Slip Op 02104, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

You might also like
CRITERIA FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE EXPULSION OF A STUDENT FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE EXPLAINED.
Motion to Strike Errata Sheet “Correcting” Substantive Discrepancies in Deposition Testimony Should Have Been Granted
Criteria for 1983 Action Against Municipality Based On Policy or Custom
WHERE A COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT A MOTION ON NOTICE, AN APPEAL IS NOT AVAILABLE BUT A MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL IS APPROPRIATE; THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SOUGHT AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DEFAULT; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT ABANDON THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT FOR PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A STATUS CONFERENCE AND COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIVE TO MOVE FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE BY A SPECIFIED DATE; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF BEER DISTRIBUTORS AND DEFENDANT BEER COMPANY, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT SECTION 55-C(4), WHICH PROHIBITS TERMINATION OF A DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, APPLIES TO BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL CONTRACTS; THE COURT WENT ON TO FIND THAT THE COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS BASED ON AN ORAL DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF SECTION 55-C(4) (SECOND DEPT).
Collapse of Rotten Floor First Revealed When Carpet Was Removed Was Not Foreseeable—Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action Properly Dismissed—Defect Was Latent and Was Not Caused by Owner—Labor Law 200 and Common-Law Negligence Causes of Action Properly Dismissed

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 SHOWING THAT THE ALLEGEDLY DISABLED PERSON WAS NOT COMPETENT IN... RELATED PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROPERLY REQUIRED TO FILE SEPARATE REPORTS WITH THE...