Hopwah v. Hopwah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hopwah v. Hopwah

254 A.D.2d 226, 678 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11390

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 226 (Hopwah v. Hopwah) 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

Hopwah v. Hopwah, 254 A.D.2d 226, 678 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Fam[227]*227ily Court, Bronx Comity (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about October 2, 1996, granting petitioner a two-year order of protection, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent had menaced petitioner with a gun and threatened to harm her children, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Family Court’s inquiry respecting respondent’s mid-trial application to proceed pro se was a proper exercise of discretion given respondent’s failure to advise the court more clearly of his wish to represent himself (see, People v Rheubottom, 131 AD2d 790).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contention and find that it is unavailing. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Fam[227]*227ily Court, Bronx Comity (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about October 2, 1996, granting petitioner a two-year order of protection, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent had menaced petitioner with a gun and threatened to harm her children, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Family Court’s inquiry respecting respondent’s mid-trial application to proceed pro se was a proper exercise of discretion given respondent’s failure to advise the court more clearly of his wish to represent himself (see, People v Rheubottom, 131 AD2d 790).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contention and find that it is unavailing. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 226, 678 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopwah-v-hopwah-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack