Eckstein v. Young
| Decision Date | 09 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. V-5887-11, V-7118-11, V-15405-11, V-3951-12, V-3951-12/14A,2015-11705 |
| Citation | 112 N.Y.S.3d 227,176 A.D.3d 813 |
| Parties | In the Matter of John Henry ECKSTEIN, Jr., Appellant, v. Carolyn Alice YOUNG, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Carolyn Alice Young, Respondent, v. John Henry Eckstein, Jr., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
176 A.D.3d 813
112 N.Y.S.3d 227
In the Matter of John Henry ECKSTEIN, Jr., Appellant,
v.
Carolyn Alice YOUNG, Respondent.
(Proceeding No. 1)
In the Matter of Carolyn Alice Young, Respondent,
v.
John Henry Eckstein, Jr., Appellant.
(Proceeding No. 2)
2015-11705
Docket Nos. V-5887-11, V-7118-11, V-15405-11, V-3951-12, V-3951-12/14A
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted - October 23, 2018
October 9, 2019
Marc A. Greenberg, Elmsford, NY, for appellant.
Carolyn Alice Young, Hartford, Connecticut, respondent pro se.
Andrew W. Szczesniak, White Plains, NY, attorney for the child.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Hal B. Greenwald, J.), dated October 22, 2015. The order, after a hearing, denied the father's petition for sole custody of the parties' child and granted the mother's petition for sole custody of the child and, in effect, for permission to relocate with the child to Connecticut. Justice Miller has been substituted for former Justice Sgroi (see 22 NYCRR 1250.1 [b] ).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
John Henry Eckstein, Jr. (hereinafter the father), and Carolyn Alice Young (hereinafter the mother) are the biological parents of a child, who was born in 2007. In 2011, the mother moved with the child out of the home where they had been living with the father, ultimately relocating to Connecticut. After the mother and the child relocated, the father filed a petition seeking sole custody of the child. The mother later filed a petition seeking sole custody of the child and, in effect, permission to relocate with the child to Connecticut. After a hearing that began in 2012 and continued until 2015, the Family Court denied the father's petition for sole custody of the child, granted the mother's petition for sole custody of the child and, in effect, for permission to relocate with the child to Connecticut. The court awarded the father parental access with the child. The father appeals.
"[T]he parent of any child seeking custody or contesting the substantial infringement of his or her right to custody of such child, in any proceeding before the court in which the court has jurisdiction to determine such custody" ( Family Ct. Act § 262[a][v] ) "has the right to the assistance of counsel" ( Family Ct. Act § 262[a] ). "Such a parent has the right to be represented by counsel of his or her own choosing and must be accorded a reasonable opportunity to select and retain his or her counsel"
( Greenberg v. Greenberg , 144 A.D.3d 625, 630, 41 N.Y.S.3d 49 ). "The right to be represented by counsel of [one's] own choosing is, however, not unlimited" ( id. at 630, 41 N.Y.S.3d 49 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). "Indeed this right is qualified in the sense that a [party] may not employ such right as a means to delay judicial proceedings" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted] ). "[A]bsent exigent or compelling circumstances, a court may, in the exercise of its discretion, deny a [party's] request to substitute counsel made on the eve of or during trial if the [party] has been accorded a reasonable opportunity to retain counsel of his [or her] own choosing before that time" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father's request for an adjournment to obtain new counsel (see id. at 630–631, 41 N.Y.S.3d 49 ). When the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lisa F. v. Thomas E.
...an evidentiary hearing at which all parties were afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate (see Matter of Eckstein v. Young, 176 A.D.3d 813, 814, 112 N.Y.S.3d 227 [2d Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 911, 2020 WL 1426432 [2020] ; Matter of Miedema v. Miedema, 144 A.D.3d 803, 804, 40 ......
-
Proceeding Under Article 6 of Family Court Act, Marvin F. v. Jaran H.
... ... unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the ... record" ( Matter of Eckstein v Young , 176 A.D.3d ... 813, 814-815 [2nd Dept. 2019]; Matter of Jules v ... Corriette , 76 A.D.3d 1016 [2nd Dept. 2010]) ... ...
-
Scott v. Adrat
...the matter had been pending for nearly 1½ years (see Ramdas v. Ramdas, 176 A.D.3d 988, 988, 108 N.Y.S.3d 347 ; Matter of Eckstein v. Young, 176 A.D.3d 813, 814, 112 N.Y.S.3d 227 ; Greenberg v. Greenberg, 144 A.D.3d 625, 631, 41 N.Y.S.3d 49 ).Adrat's remaining contentions are either improper......
-
Hernandez v. Viana
...167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Lavery v. O'Sullivan, 205 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 169 N.Y.S.3d 632 ; Matter of Eckstein v. Young, 176 A.D.3d 813, 815, 112 N.Y.S.3d 227 ). "Where, as here, a party seeks permission to relocate in the context of a petition seeking an initial custody d......