Sanguinetti v. Sanguinetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanguinetti v. Sanguinetti

295 A.D.2d 522, 744 N.Y.S.2d 858

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

DecidedJune 17, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 522 (Sanguinetti v. Sanguinetti) 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

Sanguinetti v. Sanguinetti, 295 A.D.2d 522, 744 N.Y.S.2d 858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), dated August 25, 2000, which permitted the mother to relocate with the children to Florida.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

[523]*523The Family Court erred in denying a request by the father’s then recently appointed attorney for a reasonable adjournment, prejudicing the father’s right to a meaningful opportunity to appear and present evidence (see Matter of McNeill v Ressel, 258 AD2d 64; Matter of Millay v Millay, 226 AD2d 728; Matter of Radjpaul v Patton, 145 AD2d 494). Accordingly, a new hearing is required. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Smith and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), dated August 25, 2000, which permitted the mother to relocate with the children to Florida.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

[523]*523The Family Court erred in denying a request by the father’s then recently appointed attorney for a reasonable adjournment, prejudicing the father’s right to a meaningful opportunity to appear and present evidence (see Matter of McNeill v Ressel, 258 AD2d 64; Matter of Millay v Millay, 226 AD2d 728; Matter of Radjpaul v Patton, 145 AD2d 494). Accordingly, a new hearing is required. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Smith and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 522, 744 N.Y.S.2d 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanguinetti-v-sanguinetti-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack