Seago v. Arnold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seago v. Arnold

105 A.D.2d 1157, 482 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21284

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Seago v. Arnold. Read the opinion of the Court — 91 A.D.2d 835 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 7, 1984·Published

Opinion

Order unanimously modified by deleting the second decretal paragraph and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Family Court improperly enjoined petitioner from bringing any further proceedings without being represented by counsel. A party is permitted to prosecute or defend a civil action “in person” (CPLR 321, subd [a]).

With respect to the merits of the petition, Family Court properly found that the petition failed to allege sufficient facts to warrant a hearing. (Appeal from order of Yates County Family Court, Dugan, J. — modification of support.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified by deleting the second decretal paragraph and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Family Court improperly enjoined petitioner from bringing any further proceedings without being represented by counsel. A party is permitted to prosecute or defend a civil action “in person” (CPLR 321, subd [a]).

With respect to the merits of the petition, Family Court properly found that the petition failed to allege sufficient facts to warrant a hearing. (Appeal from order of Yates County Family Court, Dugan, J. — modification of support.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Seago v. Arnold, 105 A.D.2d 1157, 482 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

105 A.D.2d 1157 (Seago v. Arnold) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.