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: Richard M. GREEN, Appellant, v. Nicole M. TIERNEY, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Connerton, J.), entered June 2, 2008, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 6, for custody of the parties' child.
Petitioner and respondent are the unmarried parents of a child. On May 22, 2008, petitioner applied for custody of the child without signing or having his attorney sign the petition. Family Court thereafter dismissed his petition for failing to comply with the signature requirement of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a. Petitioner now appeals.
Petitioner contends that Family Court erred in dismissing his petition for not containing a signature as required by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a. We agree. “Absent good cause shown, the court shall strike any unsigned paper if the omission is not corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1a[a] ). Here, although it is not clear from the record whether petitioner was represented by counsel at the time the petition was filed, there is no indication that petitioner or his attorney was given an opportunity to promptly correct the error. Nor is there any evidence that respondent has been confused or prejudiced by the error. Accordingly, we conclude that the dismissal of the unsigned petition without first bringing the error to petitioner's attention so it could be corrected was an improvident exercise of discretion (see Matter of Cardo v. Board of Mgrs., Jefferson Vil. Condo 3, 29 A.D.3d 930, 931, 817 N.Y.S.2d 315 [2006]; Pronti v. Hogan, 278 A.D.2d 841, 841-842, 718 N.Y.S.2d 909 [2000] ).
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Broome County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.
LAHTINEN, J.
MERCURE, J.P., ROSE, MALONE JR. and KAVANAGH, JJ., concur.
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: February 26, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)