Hebert v. Hebert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hebert v. Hebert

149 A.D.2d 949, 540 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5967

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

DecidedApril 14, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 949 (Hebert v. Hebert) 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

Hebert v. Hebert, 149 A.D.2d 949, 540 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Onondaga County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: The order entered in this support proceeding in Family Court must be reversed because the record does not establish that respondent was advised of his right to be represented by counsel at the hearing (see, Family Ct Act § 433 [a]). The Hearing Examiner’s question to respondent concerning whether he intended to get an attorney was insufficient to advise respondent that he had an absolute right to be [950]*950represented by counsel at the hearing at his own expense, and that he was entitled to an adjournment for the purpose of retaining the services of an attorney (cf., Matter of Krieger v Krieger, 43 AD2d 954). (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J. — vacate judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Onondaga County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: The order entered in this support proceeding in Family Court must be reversed because the record does not establish that respondent was advised of his right to be represented by counsel at the hearing (see, Family Ct Act § 433 [a]). The Hearing Examiner’s question to respondent concerning whether he intended to get an attorney was insufficient to advise respondent that he had an absolute right to be [950]*950represented by counsel at the hearing at his own expense, and that he was entitled to an adjournment for the purpose of retaining the services of an attorney (cf., Matter of Krieger v Krieger, 43 AD2d 954). (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J. — vacate judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 949, 540 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hebert-v-hebert-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack