Sabat v. Sabat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sabat v. Sabat

72 A.D.2d 585, 421 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13685

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 72 A.D.2d 585 (Sabat v. Sabat) 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

Sabat v. Sabat, 72 A.D.2d 585, 421 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the petitioner wife appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated November 28, 1978, which dismissed her application for custody and support and granted her visitation with the parties’ children who reside with their father. Order reversed, on the law, with costs and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for a new hearing and determination on all issues, in accordance herewith. The Family Court proceeded to determine custody without advising appellant of her rights to counsel, to an adjournment to confer with counsel, and to have counsel assigned if she were financially unable to obtain the same. This was reversible error. (See Family Ct Act, § 262, subd [a], par [v]; cf. Garrow v Garrow, 61 AD2d 887.) Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the petitioner wife appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated November 28, 1978, which dismissed her application for custody and support and granted her visitation with the parties’ children who reside with their father. Order reversed, on the law, with costs and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for a new hearing and determination on all issues, in accordance herewith. The Family Court proceeded to determine custody without advising appellant of her rights to counsel, to an adjournment to confer with counsel, and to have counsel assigned if she were financially unable to obtain the same. This was reversible error. (See Family Ct Act, § 262, subd [a], par [v]; cf. Garrow v Garrow, 61 AD2d 887.) Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 585, 421 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sabat-v-sabat-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack