In re Rachel P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rachel P.

286 A.D.2d 868, 730 N.Y.S.2d 890

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2001

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 868 (In re Rachel P.) 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 Rachel P., 286 A.D.2d 868, 730 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Onondaga County Family Court for further proceedings on the petition. Memorandum: As petitioner concedes, respondent did not knowingly, willingly and voluntarily waive his right to an attorney (see, Matter of Meko M., 272 AD2d 953, 954; cf., Matter of Child Welfare Admin. [John R.] v Jennifer A., 218 AD2d 694, 697, lv denied 87 NY2d 804). Family Court “failed to conduct a searching inquiry designed to ensure that [respondent] understood his right to counsel and the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” (Wills v Wills, 283 AD2d 1023, 1025). Even where, as here, the record fully supports the court’s ultimate findings, those findings “may not stand if respondent was denied due process” (Matter of Dominique L. B., 231 AD2d 948; see, Matter of Meko M., supra, at 954). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Onondaga County Family Court for further proceedings on the petition. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Bersani, J. — Abuse.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Gorski, 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 on the petition. Memorandum: As petitioner concedes, respondent did not knowingly, willingly and voluntarily waive his right to an attorney (see, Matter of Meko M., 272 AD2d 953, 954; cf., Matter of Child Welfare Admin. [John R.] v Jennifer A., 218 AD2d 694, 697, lv denied 87 NY2d 804). Family Court “failed to conduct a searching inquiry designed to ensure that [respondent] understood his right to counsel and the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” (Wills v Wills, 283 AD2d 1023, 1025). Even where, as here, the record fully supports the court’s ultimate findings, those findings “may not stand if respondent was denied due process” (Matter of Dominique L. B., 231 AD2d 948; see, Matter of Meko M., supra, at 954). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Onondaga County Family Court for further proceedings on the petition. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Bersani, J. — Abuse.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 868, 730 N.Y.S.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rachel-p-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack