In re Mabelin F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Mabelin F.

28 A.D.3d 384, 813 N.Y.S.2d 427

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

DecidedApril 25, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 384 (In re Mabelin F.) 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

In re Mabelin F., 28 A.D.3d 384, 813 N.Y.S.2d 427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Nelida Malave, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2006, which denied appellant’s motion to waive her presence during portions of the fact-finding hearing, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The presentment agency took no position on the application in Family Court or on this appeal.

The court should have granted appellant’s request to waive her presence during medical testimony about the death of her newborn child. A criminal defendant or person alleged to be a juvenile delinquent has the right to waive his or her presence at the proceedings, provided that such waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 140 [1982]; Matter of Arielle B., 17 AD3d 1056 [2005]). With input from counsel and the support of an affidavit from her treating psychiatrist forecasting her likely harm if she were forced to attend the hearing during medical testimony, we conclude appellant intelligently decided to waive her right to be present. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Nelida Malave, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2006, which denied appellant’s motion to waive her presence during portions of the fact-finding hearing, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The presentment agency took no position on the application in Family Court or on this appeal.

The court should have granted appellant’s request to waive her presence during medical testimony about the death of her newborn child. A criminal defendant or person alleged to be a juvenile delinquent has the right to waive his or her presence at the proceedings, provided that such waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 140 [1982]; Matter of Arielle B., 17 AD3d 1056 [2005]). With input from counsel and the support of an affidavit from her treating psychiatrist forecasting her likely harm if she were forced to attend the hearing during medical testimony, we conclude appellant intelligently decided to waive her right to be present. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 384, 813 N.Y.S.2d 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mabelin-f-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack