Garrow v. Garrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garrow v. Garrow

61 A.D.2d 887, 402 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10382

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 A.D.2d 887 (Garrow v. Garrow) 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

Garrow v. Garrow, 61 A.D.2d 887, 402 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Onondaga County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order committing him to the Onondaga County Correctional Facility for a term of six months for violating an order of protection. At the hearing for violation of such order, although the court informed respondent that he could be represented by an attorney, he was neither informed of his right to have an adjournment to confer with counsel nor informed of his right to have counsel assigned if he was financially unable to obtain one (Family Ct Act, §262). In light of all the circumstances disclosed in the record we find that respondent should have been clearly informed of his right to representation at the hearing. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court—contempt.) Present —Moule, J. P., Simons, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Denman, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Onondaga County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order committing him to the Onondaga County Correctional Facility for a term of six months for violating an order of protection. At the hearing for violation of such order, although the court informed respondent that he could be represented by an attorney, he was neither informed of his right to have an adjournment to confer with counsel nor informed of his right to have counsel assigned if he was financially unable to obtain one (Family Ct Act, §262). In light of all the circumstances disclosed in the record we find that respondent should have been clearly informed of his right to representation at the hearing. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court—contempt.) Present —Moule, J. P., Simons, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Denman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 887, 402 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrow-v-garrow-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack