Bly v. Hoffman

Decision Date14 February 2014
PartiesIn the Matter of Jody L. BLY, Petitioner–Appellant, v. John A. HOFFMAN, Respondent–Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County (Michael L. Nenno, J.), entered January 4, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition.

Wagner & Hart, LLP, Olean (Janine Fodor of Counsel), for PetitionerAppellant.

Wendy G. Peterson, Attorney for the Children, Olean.

MEMORANDUM:

Petitioner mother appeals from an order dismissing her petition to modify an existing custody order without a hearing. We note at the outset that the appeal is moot with respect to the parties' older child because he reached the age of 18 years during the pendency of this appeal ( see Matter of Woodruff v. Adside, 26 A.D.3d 866, 866, 809 N.Y.S.2d 754). We agree with petitioner that she was denied the right to counsel when Family Court sua sponte dismissed her petition in the absence of her attorney. “The deprivation of a party's fundamental right to counsel in a custody or visitation proceeding is a denial of due process and requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party's position” (Matter of Williams v. Bentley, 26 A.D.3d 441, 442, 809 N.Y.S.2d 205;see Family Ct. Act § 262[a]; Matter of Dolson v. Mitts, 99 A.D.3d 1079, 1080, 951 N.Y.S.2d 920;Matter of Scala v. Tefft, 42 A.D.3d 689, 691–692, 840 N.Y.S.2d 193). We therefore reverse the order, reinstate the petition and remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings on the petition. In light of our determination, we need not address petitioner's remaining contention.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal insofar as it concerns the parties' older child is unanimously dismissed, the order is reversed on the law without costs, the petition is reinstated and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Cattaraugus County, for further proceedings.

SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Carney v. Carney
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 23, 2018
    ...she is financially unable to obtain the same" ( § 262[a] ; see County Law § 722 ; Judiciary Law § 770 ; Matter of Bly v. Hoffman, 114 A.D.3d 1275, 1275, 980 N.Y.S.2d 864 [4th Dept. 2014] ; Matter of Kissel v. Kissel, 59 A.D.2d 1036, 1036, 399 N.Y.S.2d 781 [4th Dept. 1977] ; see generally Ma......
  • Froebel v. Froebel
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 23, 2022
    ...as the child is now 18 years old. We therefore dismiss appeal No. 1 insofar as it concerns custody (see Matter of Bly v. Hoffman , 114 A.D.3d 1275, 1275, 980 N.Y.S.2d 864 [4th Dept. 2014] ; Matter of Dawn M.L. v. Gary A.M. , 31 A.D.3d 1222, 1222, 817 N.Y.S.2d 557 [4th Dept. 2006] ). Contrar......
  • People v. Hart
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 14, 2014
  • Abadi v. Abadi
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • April 8, 2015
    ...of Kevin Williams v. Bentley, 26 A.D.3d 441, 442, 809 N.Y.S.2d 205 (2nd Dept.2006) ; See also In the Matter of Jody L. Bly v. Hoffman, 114 A.D.3d 1275, 980 N.Y.S.2d 864 (4th Dept.2014) ; In re Dashawn N., 101 A.D.3d 1013, 958 N.Y.S.2d 396 (2nd Dept.2012) ; Rosof v. Mallory, 88 A.D.3d 802, 9......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT