IN RE ANGELA C., pet-res, v. HARRIS K., res-res

9081. IN RE ANGELA C., pet-res, v. HARRIS K., res-res — Tennille M. Tatum-Evans, New York, for ap — Yisroel Schulman, New York Legal Assistance Group, New York (Amanda Beltz of counsel), for res — CABELLY & CALDERON, JAMAICA (LEWIS S. CALDERON OF COUNSEL), ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.—Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about December 22, 2010, which, inter alia, granted petitioner mother's motion for summary judgment on her family offense petition, finding that respondent father committed acts that constituted aggravated harassment in the second degree, and awarded her a five-year order of protection directing respondent to, inter alia, stay away from and cease communication with her and the parties' child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9081. IN RE ANGELA C., pet-res, v. HARRIS K., res-res — Tennille M. Tatum-Evans, New York, for ap — Yisroel Schulman, New York Legal Assistance Group, New York (Amanda Beltz of counsel), for res — CABELLY & CALDERON, JAMAICA (LEWIS S. CALDERON OF COUNSEL), ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.—Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about December 22, 2010, which, inter alia, granted petitioner mother’s motion for summary judgment on her family offense petition, finding that respondent father committed acts that constituted aggravated harassment in the second degree, and awarded her a five-year order of protection directing respondent to, inter alia, stay away from and cease communication with her and the parties’ child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondent’s contentions, his decision to proceed pro se during the family offense proceeding was made knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily. The record reveals that the court not only informed respondent of his right to counsel (see Family Ct Act §262), but on three separate occasions assigned a different counsel to him. Respondent dismissed each of them without cause in order to represent himself based upon his own strategic reasoning. Under these circumstances, the fact that he was unrepresented did not constitute a denial of due process; he was plainly competent to elect to proceed pro se and did so freely (see Matter of Emma L., 35 AD3d 250 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied and dismissed 8 NY3d 904 [2007]; Matter of James Joseph M. v. Rosana R., 32 AD3d 725 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 717 [2006]; Matter of Anthony K., 11 AD3d 748 [3d Dept 2004]).

IN RE ANGELA C., pet-res, v. HARRIS K., res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal