From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seifert v. Pastwick

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 20, 2014
118 A.D.3d 1503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-06-20

In the Matter of Timothy SEIFERT, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Natalie PASTWICK, Respondent–Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Carter, J.), entered April 1, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded petitioner sole custody of the subject child. The Abbatoy Law Firm, PLLC, Rochester (David M. Abbatoy, Jr., of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Jon Stern, Rochester, for Petitioner–Respondent.


Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Carter, J.), entered April 1, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded petitioner sole custody of the subject child.
The Abbatoy Law Firm, PLLC, Rochester (David M. Abbatoy, Jr., of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant.Jon Stern, Rochester, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Mary Anne Connell, Attorney for the Child, Buffalo.

MEMORANDUM:

In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent mother appeals from an order that, among other things, awarded petitioner father sole custody of the parties' child. We agree with the mother that she was denied her right to counsel. The mother was entitled to representation based upon her status as a respondent in a Family Court Act article 6 proceeding and a person alleged to be in willful violation of a court order, and Family Court's inquiry concerning her decision to proceed pro se was insufficient to enable the court to determine whether she knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived her right to counsel ( see § 262[a]; Matter of Hassig v. Hassig, 34 A.D.3d 1089, 1091, 825 N.Y.S.2d 165;see also Matter of Storelli v. Storelli, 101 A.D.3d 1787, 1788, 958 N.Y.S.2d 249). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for a new hearing ( see Storelli, 101 A.D.3d at 1788, 958 N.Y.S.2d 249). In light of our determination, we do not reach the mother's remaining contentions.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for a new hearing. SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Seifert v. Pastwick

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 20, 2014
118 A.D.3d 1503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Seifert v. Pastwick

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Timothy SEIFERT, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Natalie…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 20, 2014

Citations

118 A.D.3d 1503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
118 A.D.3d 1503
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4677

Citing Cases

Soldato ex rel. Davis v. Caringi

etitioner's contention that the issue requires preservation (see Matter of Girard v. Neville, 137 A.D.3d…

Soldato ex rel. Davis v. Caringi

e was in willful violation of the support order, and we reject petitioner's contention that the issue…