Albert v. Albert
Opinion
Contrary to the mother’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, she was not deprived of her right to counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [vi]; cf Matter of Scott v Scott, 62 AD3d 714, 715 [2009]). Moreover, the Support Magistrate providently exercised her discretion in denying the mother’s request for an adjournment (see Family Ct Act § 435 [a]; cf. Matter of Keenan v Keenan, 51 AD3d 1075, 1077 [2008]). The mother was repeatedly informed that, if she did not appear with counsel, the hearing would continue without any additional adjournments. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
101 A.D.3d 1112 (Albert v. Albert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.