Mary B. v. George T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mary B. v. George T.

58 A.D.2d 832, 396 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13009

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 A.D.2d 832 (Mary B. v. George T.) 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

Mary B. v. George T., 58 A.D.2d 832, 396 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a paternity proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 28, 1976, which, after a hearing, inter alia, dismissed the petition. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The petitioner-appellant was adequately informed by the Family Court of her right to be represented by counsel and of the availability of assigned counsel in the event that she wished counsel but was unable to afford one. Under these circumstances, we believe that her subsequent waiver of that right was knowingly and intelligently made (see Matter of Shirley D. v Ricardo B., 54 AD2d 564; cf. Matter of Louise S. v William P., 42 AD2d 962). We have considered the remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit. Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In a paternity proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 28, 1976, which, after a hearing, inter alia, dismissed the petition. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The petitioner-appellant was adequately informed by the Family Court of her right to be represented by counsel and of the availability of assigned counsel in the event that she wished counsel but was unable to afford one. Under these circumstances, we believe that her subsequent waiver of that right was knowingly and intelligently made (see Matter of Shirley D. v Ricardo B., 54 AD2d 564; cf. Matter of Louise S. v William P., 42 AD2d 962). We have considered the remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit. Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 832, 396 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-b-v-george-t-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack