PHELPS, CINDY M. v. HUNTER, EUGENE DEXTER

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 21, 2012
DocketCAF 11-02240
StatusPublished

This text of PHELPS, CINDY M. v. HUNTER, EUGENE DEXTER (PHELPS, CINDY M. v. HUNTER, EUGENE DEXTER) 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
PHELPS, CINDY M. v. HUNTER, EUGENE DEXTER, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 1410 CAF 11-02240 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF CINDY M. PHELPS AND AUGUSTUS T. PHELPS, PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EUGENE DEXTER HUNTER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ROBERT F. RHINEHART, SYRACUSE, FOR PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS.

KAREN J. DOCTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, FAYETTEVILLE, FOR SHAKIR E.H.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Salvatore Pavone, R.), entered October 7, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded sole legal and physical custody of the subject child to petitioners.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order granting the nonparent petitioners sole legal and physical custody of the father’s minor child. We affirm for reasons stated in the amended findings of fact and decision at Family Court. We add only that there is no merit to the father’s contention that the Court Attorney Referee lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter (see generally CPLR 4317 [a]). The father signed the requisite consent and, although he signed that consent before being informed of his right to counsel pursuant to Family Court Act § 262 (a), he and his attorney willingly participated in the subsequent proceedings without objection and with the full knowledge that the Court Attorney Referee would adjudicate the merits of the petition (see Matter of Carlos G. [Bernadette M.], 96 AD3d 632, 633; 1199 Hous. Corp. v Jimco Restoration Corp., 77 AD3d 502, 502; Dodge v Lynch, 55 AD3d 314, 315, lv denied 11 NY3d 713; cf. Matter of Gale v Gale, 87 AD3d 1011, 1012; Matter of Osmundson v Held-Cummings, 306 AD2d 950, 950-951).

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

Related

Dodge v. Lynch
55 A.D.3d 314 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
1199 Housing Corp. v. Jimco Restoration Corp.
77 A.D.3d 502 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Gale v. Gale
87 A.D.3d 1011 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Osmundson v. Held-Cummings
306 A.D.2d 950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
PHELPS, CINDY M. v. HUNTER, EUGENE DEXTER, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phelps-cindy-m-v-hunter-eugene-dexter-nyappdiv-2012.