GIRARD, MINDY S. v. NEVILLE, WILLIAM R.

137 A.D.3d 1589, 26 N.Y.S.3d 897
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 18, 2016
DocketCAF 15-00153
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 1589 (GIRARD, MINDY S. v. NEVILLE, WILLIAM R.) 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
GIRARD, MINDY S. v. NEVILLE, WILLIAM R., 137 A.D.3d 1589, 26 N.Y.S.3d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oswego County (Donald E. Todd, A.J.), entered March 18, 2014. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent had willfully failed to obey a court order and placed respondent on probation for a period of three years.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Oswego County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order confirming the determination of the Support Magistrate that he willfully violated an order of child support and sentencing him to three years of

*1590 probation. Although the Support Magistrate properly advised respondent that he had the right to counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [vi]), we agree with respondent that the Support Magistrate failed to make a “ ‘searching inquiry’ ” to ensure that his waiver of the right to counsel was a knowing, voluntary and intelligent choice, and thus that he was denied his right to counsel (Matter of Storelli v Storelli, 101 AD3d 1787, 1788 [2012]; see Matter of Commissioner of Genesee County Dept. of Social Servs. v Jones, 87 AD3d 1275, 1275-1276 [2011]). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for a new hearing. To the extent that our decision in Matter of Huard v Lugo (81 AD3d 1265, 1266 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 710 [2011]) requires preservation of a contention that the Support Magistrate erred in allowing the respondent to proceed pro se at a fact-finding hearing, that decision is no longer to be followed. In light of our determination, we do not review respondent’s remaining contentions.

Present—Whalen, P.J., Centra, Lindley, Troutman and Scudder, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Crespo v. Wynn
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026
Matter of Foley v. Dwyer
2021 NY Slip Op 01891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of DiNunzio v. Zylinski
2019 NY Slip Op 6337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Villella v. Villella
2018 NY Slip Op 7917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Soldato ex rel. Davis v. Caringi
137 A.D.3d 1749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 A.D.3d 1589, 26 N.Y.S.3d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/girard-mindy-s-v-neville-william-r-nyappdiv-2016.