From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Sasha S

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 16, 1998
256 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 16, 1998

Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (McLeod, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

It is well settled that parental rights are not subject to curtailment in this State absent a meaningful opportunity to be heard, which necessarily entails the assistance of counsel ( see, Matter of Radjpaul v. Patton, 145 A.D.2d 494; Matter of Patricia L. v. Steven L., 119 A.D.2d 221). That right includes the party's entitlement to have counsel present from the time of his or her appearance in the proceeding ( see, Matter of Alexander L., 60 N.Y.2d 329, 335; Matter of Radjpaul v. Patton, supra, at 497; Matter of Patricia L. v. Steven L., supra, at 224).

Here, after obtaining an order of filiation, the father appeared in court several times during the dispositional hearings, seeking custody of his infant daughter, Sasha S. Although the father was not a named respondent in the neglect petition, the court erroneously concluded that he was not a party, and despite the urging of counsel for the other parties, failed to advise him of his right to counsel, or if financially unable, the right to have counsel assigned ( see, Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [v]). This right, accorded by statute, is so important that the failure to advise a party thereof is reversible error ( see, Matter of Patricia L. v. Steven L., supra, at 224). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, to advise the father of his right to counsel, and, if appropriate, to assign counsel, following which a new dispositional hearing in the neglect proceeding and a "full and fair hearing" with findings of fact in the custody proceeding shall be held ( Matter of Patricia L. v. Steven L., 119 A.D.2d 221, 226, supra; see, Moseku v. Moseku, 108 A.D.2d 795; Corso v. Corso, 48 A.D.2d 652).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Sasha S

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 16, 1998
256 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Sasha S

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SASHA S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. ADMINISTRATION…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 16, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
682 N.Y.S.2d 99

Citing Cases

Matter of Sugnet v. Stiles

At that hearing, conducted before a Judicial Hearing Officer upon the consent of the parties, the parties…

Matter of McNeill v. Ressel

ance of experience and expertise'" between the State and an unrepresented party ( Matter of Ella B., supra,…