Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Candace Jones FORD, appellant, v. Krystal TINDAL, respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated January 11, 2005, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition for an order of protection against the respondent.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
On December 8, 2004, the petitioner filed a petition pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act seeking an order of protection against the respondent. The petitioner alleged, inter alia, that, on December 3, 2004, the respondent threatened to throw a cup of hot coffee at her. At a hearing, the petitioner was not represented by counsel and was not advised by the court of her right to have counsel present. Following the hearing, the Family Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the respondent committed a family offense.
Family Court Act § 262(a)(ii) confers a right to the assistance of counsel upon “the petitioner and the respondent in any proceeding under article eight of this act.” Here, the Family Court's failure to advise the petitioner of her right to be represented by counsel of her own choosing, her right to an adjournment to confer with counsel, and her right to have counsel assigned if she was financially unable to obtain representation (see Family Ct. Act § 262 [a] ), constituted reversible error (see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Rodriquez, 284 A.D.2d 330, 331, 725 N.Y.S.2d 393; Matter of Wilson v. Bennett, 282 A.D.2d 933, 934-935, 724 N.Y.S.2d 520; Matter of Sasha S., 256 A.D.2d 468, 469, 682 N.Y.S.2d 99; Matter of Brainard v. Brainard, 88 A.D.2d 996, 451 N.Y.S.2d 832; Matter of Sabat v. Sabat, 72 A.D.2d 585, 421 N.Y.S.2d 18).
Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, to advise the petitioner of her right to counsel and, if appropriate, to assign counsel and for a new hearing and determination.
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the petitioner's remaining contention.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 19, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)