Cerami v. Cerami
| Decision Date | 23 May 1974 |
| Parties | Yolanda T. CERAMI, Respondent, v. Michael F. CERAMI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Monroe County Legal Assistance Corp. (David C. Leven) Rochester, for appellant Monroe County Legal Assistance Corp.
Rene H. Reixach, Jr., Rochester, for appellant Cerami.
S. Gerald Davidson, Rochester, for respondent.
William J. Stevens (Joseph C. Pilato), Rochester, for County of Monroe amicus curiae.
Before MARSH, P.J., and MOULE, CARDAMONE, SIMONS and DEL VECCHIO, JJ.
Upon defendant's application to defend as a poor person an action for divorce and for related relief, including assignment of counsel (CPLR 1101, 1102), the court assigned the Monroe County Legal Assistance Corporation over the objection of the corporation. Defendant, an indigent is presently incarcerated in the Auburn Correctional Facility. While defendant's circumstances clearly warrant the assignment of counsel by the court, it would appear that the court's assignment of the Monroe County Legal Assistance Corporation, a federally funded agency, over the objection of the corporation, was an improvident exercise of discretion in view of the limitations imposed on the scope of the corporation's authorization to participate in the performance of legal services. Benjamin E. Solin of the Monroe County Legal Aid Society, having consented to act as defendant's attorney without compensation, except as to statutory costs, is herewith assigned as his attorney (see Vanderpool v. Vanderpool, Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. B, 40 A.D.2d 1030, 339 N.Y.S.2d 657; Brounsky v. Brounsky, 33 A.D.2d 1028, 308 N.Y.S.2d 72; Emerson v. Emerson, 33 A.D.2d 1022, 308 N.Y.S.2d 69).
Order unanimously modified in accordance with Memorandum and as modified affirmed without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Menin v. Menin
...it is understaffed and overworked. Consequently, our inquiry narrows down to whether the private bar may be assigned (Cerami v. Cerami, 44 A.D.2d 890, 355 N.Y.S.2d 861; Vanderpool v. Vanderpool, 40 A.D.2d 1030, 339 N.Y.S.2d by virtue of our constitutional provision requiring 'due judicial p......
-
Cerami v. Cerami
...87, 330 N.E.2d 53 (1975) (appointment of counsel in matrimonial action not constitutionally required); Cerami v. Cerami, 44 App.Div.2d 890, 355 N.Y.S.2d 861 (4th Dept. 1974) (re earlier appointment of counsel for defendant in this action).2 Long before the enactment of Domestic Relations La......