Jetter v. Jetter
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Guzzo v. Guzzo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- McGregor v. Bacchus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- In re Stephen Daniel A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Knight v. Knight (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re Casey N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Matter of Riordan v. Riordan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Spencer v. Spencer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Holder v. Francis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Kristin R.H. v. Robert E.H. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Matter of Cecile D. (Kassia D.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of Gallousis v. Gallousis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Osorio v. Osorio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Cerquin v. Visintin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Cerquin v. Visintin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Belmonte v. Batista (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Belmonte v. Batista (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re Mia B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re Mia B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Tumminello v. Tumminello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Collier v. Norman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Francis v. Holder (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Doino v. Cartelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Rings County (Silber, J.), dated February 9, 2006, which, after a hearing, directed him to refrain from, inter alia, committing any criminal offense against the wife until February 8, 2008.
Ordered that the order of protection is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new hearing and determination in accordance herewith; and it is further,
A party in a Family Court Act article 8 proceeding has the right to be represented by counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [ii]; Matter of Otto v Otto, 26 AD3d 498, 499 [2006]). That party, however, can waive the right to counsel and opt for self-representation (see People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 103 [2002]; People v Smith, 92 NY2d 516, 520 [1998]; People v Anderson, 125 AD2d 580, 581 [1986]). Prior to permitting a party to proceed pro se, the court must determine that the decision to do so is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (see People v Arroyo, supra). To ascertain whether a party’s waiver of counsel meets these requirements, the court must conduct a “searching inquiry” of that party (People v Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485, 491 [1991]). Although there is no “rigid formula” as to the questions the court needs to ask for counsel waivers, there must be a showing that the party “was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” (People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 582-583 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Here, the Family Court failed to advise the husband of the risks of self-representation. As such, there was no knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel (see People v Arroyo, supra; People v Smith, supra; Matter of Hassig v Hassig, 34 AD3d 1089 [2006]; Matter of Rachel P., 286 AD2d 868 [2001]). Accordingly, we reverse the order of protection and remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new hearing and determination.
The husband’s remaining contention is without merit. Spolzino, J.P, Santucci, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.