Teeter v. Reed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teeter v. Reed

57 A.D.2d 735, 395 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11801

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

DecidedApril 15, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 735 (Teeter v. Reed) 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

Teeter v. Reed, 57 A.D.2d 735, 395 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motions denied. Memorandum: The County of Monroe appeals from an order granting petitioner’s motion and respondent Law Guardian’s cross motion to appeal and cross appeal as poor persons from a decision denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus by which she sought custody of her minor child. CPLR 1101 (subd [a]) provides that upon an application for permission to appeal as a poor person, the "moving party shall file his affidavit setting forth * * * sufficient facts so that the merit of his contentions can be ascertained”. Here neither petitioner nor respondent included such facts in their respective affidavits. Although both did submit affidavits from their attorneys pursuant to CPLR 1101 (subd [b]) to the effect that their counsel believed there was merit to the appeal and cross appeal, this did not relieve them from the requirement of setting forth facts in their own affidavits showing merit (see Hauck v Roncone, 5 AD2d 804; Johnson v Rochester Sav. Bank, 256 App Div 1043; Weinstein v Frank, 56 App Div 275; 21 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 127:12). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Family Court—proceed as poor person.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motions denied. Memorandum: The County of Monroe appeals from an order granting petitioner’s motion and respondent Law Guardian’s cross motion to appeal and cross appeal as poor persons from a decision denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus by which she sought custody of her minor child. CPLR 1101 (subd [a]) provides that upon an application for permission to appeal as a poor person, the "moving party shall file his affidavit setting forth * * * sufficient facts so that the merit of his contentions can be ascertained”. Here neither petitioner nor respondent included such facts in their respective affidavits. Although both did submit affidavits from their attorneys pursuant to CPLR 1101 (subd [b]) to the effect that their counsel believed there was merit to the appeal and cross appeal, this did not relieve them from the requirement of setting forth facts in their own affidavits showing merit (see Hauck v Roncone, 5 AD2d 804; Johnson v Rochester Sav. Bank, 256 App Div 1043; Weinstein v Frank, 56 App Div 275; 21 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 127:12). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Family Court—proceed as poor person.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 735, 395 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teeter-v-reed-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack