Spencer v. Spencer

77 A.D.3d 761, 908 N.Y.S.2d 597
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 12, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 77 A.D.3d 761 (Spencer v. Spencer) 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
Spencer v. Spencer, 77 A.D.3d 761, 908 N.Y.S.2d 597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Sheares, J.), dated September 28, 2009, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

Family Court Act § 262 (a) (ii) confers the right to the assistance of counsel upon parties in proceedings brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 (see Matter of Knight v Knight, 59 AD3d 445, 446 [2009]). A party, however, may waive the right to counsel, provided that the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 103 [2002]; Matter of Jetter v Jetter, 43 AD3d 821, 822 [2007]). To determine whether a party is validly waiving the right to counsel, the court must conduct a “searching inquiry” of the party who wishes to waive that right and thus proceed pro se (People v [762]*762Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485, 491 [1991] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Jetter v Jetter, 43 AD3d at 822).

Here, the petitioner was entitled to be represented by counsel, as she was a petitioner in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [ii]). The record, however, is inadequate to demonstrate that the petitioner validly waived her right to counsel (see Matter of Casey N., 59 AD3d 625, 628-630 [2009]; Matter of McGregor v Bacchus, 54 AD3d 678, 678-679 [2008]). Accordingly, the order must be reversed, the petition reinstated, and the matter remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a proper inquiry into whether the petitioner understands the consequences of self representation. Thereafter, as the petitioner’s allegations stated a cause of action constituting a family offense pursuant to Family Court Act § 821 (1), a fact-finding hearing must be held on the matter (see Family Ct Act § 832). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Mendez-Emmanuel v. Emmanuel
2024 NY Slip Op 01180 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Pitkanen v. Huscher
2018 NY Slip Op 8661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Riordan v. Riordan
2017 NY Slip Op 5094 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Dixon v. Marshall
2017 NY Slip Op 5085 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Gugliara v. Gugliara
2017 NY Slip Op 4840 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Bianco v. Bruce-Ross
2017 NY Slip Op 4435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Osorio v. Osorio
142 A.D.3d 1177 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Nixon v. Christian
130 A.D.3d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Cerquin v. Visintin
118 A.D.3d 987 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Rosof v. Mallory
88 A.D.3d 802 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Stephen Daniel A.
87 A.D.3d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Tumminello v. Tumminello
82 A.D.3d 992 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 A.D.3d 761, 908 N.Y.S.2d 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-spencer-nyappdiv-2010.