You are here: / / PARTY SUBJECT TO THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING DID NOT KNOWINGLY...
,

PARTY SUBJECT TO THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

The Second Department determined Family Court did not ensure that the party subject to an order of protection proceeding knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel:

​

A party in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 has the right to be represented by counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][ii]), but may waive that right provided that he or she does so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily … . In order to determine whether a party is validly waiving the right to counsel, the court must conduct a “searching inquiry” to ensure that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary … . ” While there is no rigid formula to the court’s inquiry, there must be a showing that the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel'” … , and it is the “better practice” for the court to inquire about the litigant’s ” age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures and other relevant factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, voluntary waiver'” … .

Here, the record was inadequate to demonstrate that the appellant validly waived his right to counsel … . Accordingly, the order must be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new hearing at which the appellant shall either appear with counsel or knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to counsel, and a new determination on the petition thereafter. Matter of Dixon v Marshall, 2017 NY Slip Op 05085, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

 

FAMILY LAW (PARTY SUBJECT TO THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, ORDER OF PROTECTION, PARTY SUBJECT TO THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FAMILY LAW, ORDER OF PROTECTION, PARTY SUBJECT TO THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/ORDER OF PROTECTION (FAMILY LAW, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, PARTY SUBJECT TO THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)

You might also like
Defendant Denied Constitutional Right to Present a Defense—Evidence Victim Identified Another as the Perpetrator Wrongly Excluded
HERE, EVEN THOUGH THE INITIAL ACTION WAS TIMELY ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS PROVISION” EXTENSION IN CPLR 205(A), THE SECOND ACTION, COMMENCED AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST FOR LACK OF STANDING, CAN BE DEEMED TIMELY UNDER A SECOND CPLR 205(A) SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS PROVISION” EXTENSION (SECOND DEPT).​ ​
Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Re: Related Criminal Convictions Properly Applied
Failure to Inform Defendant of the Specific Period of Postrelease Supervision Applicable to the Offense Defendant Pled To Required Vacation of Sentence
THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT INCLUDE THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT’S DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION TO MODIFY HIS SORA RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING VIOLATED THE CORRECTION LAW (SECOND DEPT).
SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITIONAL ORDER OF PRECLUSION SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE BEYOND THE PENALTY DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (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 WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SUPERVISORS’ FAILURE TO TAKE... FAILURE TO APPOINT NEW COUNSEL IN THE THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING, AFTER RELIEVING...