Both parties appeared on February 2, 2006 although respondent failed to produce any documents substantiating his income and assets. There is nothing in the court file indicating that petitioner requested that counsel be assigned on her behalf, although she is entitled to make such an application in this proceeding (Fam.Ct. Act § 262 [a] [ii]; see, Matter of Ford v. Tindall, ___ AD3d ___, 808 NYS2d 386 [ 24 AD3d 664]).
Order, Family Court, New York County (Adetokunbo O. Fasanya, J.), entered on or about January 9, 2015, which dismissed, without prejudice, the petition for an order of protection against respondent for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition reinstated, and the matter remanded for the court to advise petitioner of his right to counsel, and for a new hearing consistent with this decision.Family Court committed reversible error when, during a brief hearing in this article 8 proceeding, it failed to advise the pro se petitioner that he had a right to the assistance of counsel of his own choosing, a right to an adjournment to confer with counsel, and a right to have counsel assigned if he was financially unable to obtain representation (Family Ct. Act § 262[a] [ii] ; see Matter of Ford v. Tindal, 24 A.D.3d 664, 665, 808 N.Y.S.2d 386 [2d Dept.2005] ; see also Matter of Mora v. Alatriste, 99 A.D.3d 540, 541, 952 N.Y.S.2d 440 [1st Dept.2012] ). Moreover, Family Court did not possess sufficient relevant information to allow it to make an informed determination as to whether the parties are or have been in an "intimate relationship" within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) (see Matter of Seye v. Lamar, 72 A.D.3d 975, 977, 900 N.Y.S.2d 112 [2d Dept.2010] ). Further evidence is needed regarding the frequency of petitioner and respondent's interactions (Matter of Winston v. Edwards–Clarke, 127 A.D.3d 771, 773, 6 N.Y.S.3d 566 [2d Dept.2015] ).SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, MAZZARELLI, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ., concur.
o the assistance of counsel upon parties in proceedings brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The statute further provides that "[w]hen such person first appears in court, the judge shall advise such person before proceeding that he or she has the right to be represented by counsel of his or her own choosing, of the right to have an adjournment to confer with counsel, and of the right to have counsel assigned by the court in any case where he or she is financially unable to obtain the same" (Family Ct Act § 262 [a]). The deprivation of a party's right to counsel guaranteed by this statute "requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party's position" ( Matter of Brown v Wood, 38 AD3d 769, 770; see Matter of Shepherd v Moore-Shepherd, 54 AD3d 347; Matter of Hall v Ladson, 28 AD3d 768; see also Matter of Knight v Knight, 59 AD3d 445; Matter of McGregor v Bacchus, 54 AD3d 678; Matter of Guzzo v Guzzo, 50 AD3d 687; Matter of Jetter v Jetter, 43 AD3d 821; Matter of Ford v Tindal, 24 AD3d 664). Here, the petitioner was entitled to be represented by counsel, as she was a parent seeking custody of her child and, during the pendency of the custody proceeding, visitation with the child ( see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [v]), and a petitioner in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 ( see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [ii]).
Family Court Act § 262 (a) (v) confers a right to the assistance of counsel upon "the parent of any child seeking custody or contesting the substantial infringement of his or her right to custody of such child, in any proceeding before the court in which the court has jurisdiction to determine such custody." "Here, the Family Court's failure to advise the petitioner of [his] right to be represented by counsel of [his] own choosing, [his] right to an adjournment to confer with counsel, and [his] right to have counsel assigned if was financially unable to obtain representation ( see Family Ct Act § 262 [a]), constituted reversible error" ( Matter of Ford v. Tindal, 24 AD3d 664, 665; see Matter of Gross v. Gross, 7 AD3d 711, 712-713; Matter of Machado v. Del Villar, 299 AD2d 361, 361-362; Matter of Alexander v. Maharaj, 299 AD2d 354, 355; Matter of Wilson v. Bennett, 282 AD2d 933, 935; Matter of Sabat v. Sabat, 72 AD2d 585, 585). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, to advise the petitioner of his right to counsel and, if appropriate, to assign counsel, and for a new hearing and determination.