Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed an order of protection issued after a Family Court hearing and remitted the matter for a new hearing and determination. The court held that the appellant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his statutory right to counsel because he did not understand the court's explanation of the risks of proceeding without counsel.
Holdings
- A party may waive the right to counsel only if the waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and the Family Court must conduct a searching inquiry sufficient to establish that the party understands the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel.
- Deprivation of a party's right to counsel under Family Court Act § 262 requires reversal without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party's position.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Family Court adequately established that Lawrence Gugliara knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his statutory right to counsel in the Family Court Act article 8 proceeding.
- Whether deprivation of the right to counsel required reversal of the order of protection without consideration of the merits.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (7)
- Matter of Osorio v Osorio, 142 AD3d 1177, 1178(followed)
- Matter of McGregor v Bacchus, 54 AD3d 678, 678-679(followed)
- Matter of Tumminello v Tumminello, 82 AD3d 992, 993(followed)
- Matter of Belmonte v Batista, 102 AD3d 682, 683(followed)
- Matter of Rosof v Mallory, 88 AD3d 802, 802(followed)
- Matter of Stephen Daniel A. [Sandra M.], 87 AD3d 735, 736(followed)
- Matter of Spencer v Spencer, 77 AD3d 761, 762(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…