Karla V. v. Angel L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karla V. v. Angel L.

68 A.D.3d 443, 888 N.Y.2d 880

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 443 (Karla V. v. Angel L.) 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

Karla V. v. Angel L., 68 A.D.3d 443, 888 N.Y.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[444]*444Respondent, who was incarcerated at the time of the December 17, 2007 hearing, was entitled to an opportunity to be heard (Family Ct Act § 433 [a]). Although he wrote the court advising of his incarceration and his desire to participate in the hearing, no effort was made to produce him for the hearing or to permit him to testify by telephone or other electronic means as permitted in such circumstances (Family Ct Act § 433 [c] [ii]). “[E]ven an incarcerated parent has a right to be heard on matters concerning [his] child, where there is neither a willful refusal to appear nor a waiver of appearance” (Matter of Tristram K., 25 AD3d 222, 226 [2005]; see Matter of Jung [State Commn. on Jud. Conduct], 11 NY3d 365, 373 [2008]). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing (see Matter of Seckler-Roode v Roode, 53 AD3d 616 [2008]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

[444]*444Respondent, who was incarcerated at the time of the December 17, 2007 hearing, was entitled to an opportunity to be heard (Family Ct Act § 433 [a]). Although he wrote the court advising of his incarceration and his desire to participate in the hearing, no effort was made to produce him for the hearing or to permit him to testify by telephone or other electronic means as permitted in such circumstances (Family Ct Act § 433 [c] [ii]). “[E]ven an incarcerated parent has a right to be heard on matters concerning [his] child, where there is neither a willful refusal to appear nor a waiver of appearance” (Matter of Tristram K., 25 AD3d 222, 226 [2005]; see Matter of Jung [State Commn. on Jud. Conduct], 11 NY3d 365, 373 [2008]). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing (see Matter of Seckler-Roode v Roode, 53 AD3d 616 [2008]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 443, 888 N.Y.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karla-v-v-angel-l-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack