Garner v. Garner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garner v. Garner

88 A.D.3d 708, 930 N.Y.2d 465

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 4, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 708 (Garner v. Garner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garner v. Garner, 88 A.D.3d 708, 930 N.Y.2d 465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[709]*709The petitioner father contends that the Family Court failed to take the appropriate measures to protect his right to assigned counsel pursuant to Family Court Act § 262 (a) (see generally Matter of Casey N., 59 AD3d 625 [2009]). However, the issue cannot be resolved on the record provided to this Court since it does not contain a transcript for the proceedings held on July 29, 2009. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, for a reconstruction hearing with respect to those proceedings conducted in the above-entitled case before Court Attorney Referee Francine Seiden on July 29, 2009, which cannot be transcribed, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim (see Matter of Hall v Ladson, 18 AD3d 753 [2005]; Matter of Olson v Olson, 8 AD3d 285 [2004]; accord CPLR 5525 [d]; cf. Matter of Remy v Mitchell, 60 AD3d 860 [2009]; Matter of Jordal v Jordal, 193 AD2d 1102 [1993]). Dillon, J.E, Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[709]*709The petitioner father contends that the Family Court failed to take the appropriate measures to protect his right to assigned counsel pursuant to Family Court Act § 262 (a) (see generally Matter of Casey N., 59 AD3d 625 [2009]). However, the issue cannot be resolved on the record provided to this Court since it does not contain a transcript for the proceedings held on July 29, 2009. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, for a reconstruction hearing with respect to those proceedings conducted in the above-entitled case before Court Attorney Referee Francine Seiden on July 29, 2009, which cannot be transcribed, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim (see Matter of Hall v Ladson, 18 AD3d 753 [2005]; Matter of Olson v Olson, 8 AD3d 285 [2004]; accord CPLR 5525 [d]; cf. Matter of Remy v Mitchell, 60 AD3d 860 [2009]; Matter of Jordal v Jordal, 193 AD2d 1102 [1993]). Dillon, J.E, Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 708, 930 N.Y.2d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garner-v-garner-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack