Anderson v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 15 February 1966 |
| Citation | 267 N.Y.S.2d 75,25 A.D.2d 512 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Edith ANDERSON, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Ralph ANDERSON, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
J. Satta, New York City, for petitioner-respondent.
A. Koenig, New York City, for respondent-appellant.
Before BREITEL, J. P., and RABIN, McNALLY and STEUER, JJ.
Order of commitment for violation of family offense order, entered November 16, 1965, unanimously reversed on the law, and the proceedings remanded to Family Court with leave to amend the petition or to make and file a supplemental petition, and for reconsideration of any punishment imposed, without costs or disbursements to either party. While Family Court proceedings are permitted to be informal, due process considerations require that a commitment be based on a petition alleging the facts supporting the commitment [Family Court Act, §§ 821, 827]. In this case, the only petition filed was for an event in May, 1965 which petitioner wife had abandoned and which the hearing court observed was no longer applicable. Because of serious misconduct charged to the husband and his flagrant violation of the temporary order, however lacking as it was in a proper pleading basis, the proceedings should be remanded so that the Court may provide the protection needed by petitioner wife. In passing, it is observed that the 90-day sentence may have been excessive, especially if consideration be given to maintaining the respondent husband's capacity to support petitioner wife.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raucci v. Town of Rotterdam
...toward any such person...." Fam.Ct.Act Sec. 821(1)(a). The Practice Commentary under section 821, citing Anderson v. Anderson, 25 A.D.2d 512, 267 N.Y.S.2d 75 (1966), states that "due process (as well as the orderly administration of justice) require that the petition conform to standard rul......
-
Ferratella v. Thomas
...require that a commitment be based on a petition alleging the facts supporting the commitment" ( Matter of Anderson v. Anderson , 25 A.D.2d 512, 512, 267 N.Y.S.2d 75 [1st Dept. 1966] ; see Matter of Felicia W. v. Chandler C. , 9 A.D.3d 830, 830, 779 N.Y.S.2d 377 [4th Dept. 2004] ). Despite ......
-
Figueroa v. Figueroa
...to the evidence introduced by petitioner (Family Court Act 846-a; Ryan v. Ryan, 42 A.D.2d 733, 346 N.Y.S.2d 105; Anderson v. Anderson, 25 A.D.2d 512, 267 N.Y.S.2d 75). It is well-settled that the privilege against self-incrimination may not be asserted or claimed in advance of questions act......
-
Sasha R. v. Alberto A.
...harassment in the second degree were improperly predicated upon facts not alleged in the petition (see Matter of Anderson v. Anderson, 25 A.D.2d 512, 267 N.Y.S.2d 75 [1st Dept.1966] ; Matter of 8 N.Y.S.3d 279 Salazar v. Melendez, 97 A.D.3d 754, 755, 948 N.Y.S.2d 673 [2d Dept.2012], lv. deni......