Graham v. Rawley
| Decision Date | 01 June 2016 |
| Citation | 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04220,140 A.D.3d 765,33 N.Y.S.3d 371 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Jessica C. GRAHAM, appellant, v. Charles T. RAWLEY, respondent. (Proceeding Nos. 1 and 3) In the Matter of Charles T. Rawley, respondent, v. Jessica Graham, appellant. (Proceeding Nos. 2 and 4). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles T. Rawley, Elizabeth, New Jersey, respondent pro se.
Larry S. Bachner, attorney for the child.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, ROBERT J. MILLER, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeals from (1) stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Karen Wolff, J.), dated January 28, 2015, (2) an order of that court dated March 19, 2015, (3) an order of that court, also dated March 19, 2015, and (4) stated portions of an order of that court dated May 28, 2015. The order dated January 28, 2015, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, dismissed the mother's family offense petition. The first order dated March 19, 2015, after a hearing, awarded custody of the parties' child to the father. The second order dated March 19, 2015, dismissed the mother's petition to hold the father in violation of a prior agreement regarding visitation. The order dated May 28, 2015, insofar as appealed from, denied the mother's motion to vacate the first order dated March 19, 2015.
ORDERED that the orders dated January 28, 2015, and May 28, 2015, are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In November 2013, the father filed a petition seeking custody of the parties' child. Thereafter, the mother filed a family offense petition against the father, as well as a petition which alleged that the father violated a prior agreement between the parties regarding visitation. After a hearing, the Family Court, in the order appealed from dated January 28, 2015, dismissed the mother's family offense petition. The Family Court subsequently commenced a hearing on the father's custody petition. However, during the pendency of the custody hearing, the mother exited the courtroom and did not return. Thereafter, in the first and second orders appealed from dated March 19, 2015, the Family Court awarded custody of the child to the father and dismissed the mother's violation petition, respectively. The mother subsequently moved to vacate the first order dated March 19, 2015, which awarded custody of the parties' child to the father and which was entered upon her default. In the order appealed from dated March 28, 2015, the Family Court denied her motion.
Initially, the mother's appeal from the first order dated March 19, 2015, which awarded custody of the parties' child to the father, must be dismissed, except for matters which were the subject of contest before the Family Court, as it was entered upon the mother's default after she voluntarily exited the courtroom during the pendency of the custody hearing and failed to return (see CPLR 5511
Zulme v. Maehrlein, 133 A.D.3d 608, 609, 18 N.Y.S.3d 552 ; Matter of
Smith v. Howard, 113 A.D.3d 781, 978 N.Y.S.2d 856 ). Although the mother subsequently moved to vacate the order of custody, the Family Court properly denied her motion in the order dated May 28, 2015 (see
Zaidi v. New York Bldg. Contrs., Ltd., 61 A.D.3d 747, 748, 877 N.Y.S.2d 381 ; Bitterman v. Hurewitz, 15 A.D.3d 434, 789 N.Y.S.2d 450 ).
The issue of the mother's waiver of the right to counsel was the subject of contest before the Family Court and, therefore, may be reviewed by this Court in conjunction with the first order dated March 19, 2015, as well as the other orders. “Family Court Act § 262
provides certain parties to particular Family Court proceedings with a statutory right to counsel” (Matter of
Brown v. Wood, 38 A.D.3d 769, 769, 834 N.Y.S.2d 196 ). A party, however, may waive the right to counsel and opt for self-representation, provided that he or she does so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (see
Matter of Casey N., 59 A.D.3d 625, 627, 873 N.Y.S.2d 343 ; Matter of
Knight v. Knight, 59 A.D.3d 445, 446, 873 N.Y.S.2d 324 ). “In order to determine whether a party is validly waiving the right to counsel, the court must conduct a ‘searching inquiry’ of the party who wishes to waive that right and thus proceed pro se” (Matter of
McGregor v. Bacchus, 54 A.D.3d 678, 679, 863 N.Y.S.2d 260, quoting People v. Slaughter, 78 N.Y.2d 485, 491, 577 N.Y.S.2d 206, 583 N.E.2d 919 ). “While there is no ‘rigid formula’ to the court's inquiry, there must be a showing that the party was ‘aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel’ ” (Matter of Casey N., 59 A.D.3d 625, 627, 873 N.Y.S.2d 343, quoting People v. Providence, 2 N.Y.3d 579, 582, 780 N.Y.S.2d 552, 813 N.E.2d 632 ). “Generally, a litigant will be deemed competent to proceed pro se if that person is competent to proceed to trial” (Matter of
Julie G. v. Yu–Jen G., 81 A.D.3d 1079, 1081, 917 N.Y.S.2d 355 ; see
Matter of Anthony K., 11 A.D.3d 748, 749, 783 N.Y.S.2d 418 ).
Based upon our review of the record, the Family Court conducted a sufficiently searching inquiry to ensure that the mother's waiver of her right to counsel was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v. Providence, 2 N.Y.3d at 583, 780 N.Y.S.2d 552, 813 N.E.2d 632
Ryan v. Alexander, 133 A.D.3d 605, 606, 18 N.Y.S.3d 717 ; Matter of
McGregor v. Bacchus, 54 A.D.3d at 679, 863 N.Y.S.2d 260 ). Further, the mother was sufficiently competent to waive her right to counsel (see Matter of
Julie G. v. Yu–Jen G., 81 A.D.3d at 1081, 917 N.Y.S.2d 355 ; Matter of Anthony K., 11 A.D.3d at 749, 783 N.Y.S.2d 418 ). Accord...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dinunzio v. Zylinski
...contest before ... [the c]ourt and, therefore, may be reviewed by this Court in [appeal Nos. 1–5]" ( Matter of Graham v. Rawley , 140 A.D.3d 765, 766–767, 33 N.Y.S.3d 371 [2d Dept. 2016], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 28 N.Y.3d 955, 38 N.Y.S.3d 524, 60 N.E.3d 420 [2016] ).The crit......
-
In re Lillian SS.
...Ryan v. Alexander, 133 A.D.3d at 606, 18 N.Y.S.3d 717 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Graham v. Rawley, 140 A.D.3d 765, 767, 33 N.Y.S.3d 371 [2016], lv. dismissed and denied 28 N.Y.3d 955, 38 N.Y.S.3d 524, 60 N.E.3d 420 [2016] ) and that he was competent to m......
-
Aleman v. Lansch
...(see Family Ct Act § 262[a][ii], [v] ; Matter of Dixon v. Marshall , 151 A.D.3d 965, 966, 54 N.Y.S.3d 310 ; Matter of Graham v. Rawley , 140 A.D.3d 765, 767, 33 N.Y.S.3d 371 ). However, he also had the right to waive counsel and proceed pro se, provided he waived his right to counsel knowin......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent committed a family offense (see Matter of Graham v. Rawley, 140 A.D.3d 765, 767–768, 33 N.Y.S.3d 371 ; Matter of Davis v. Wright, 140 A.D.3d at 754, 30 N.Y.S.3d 923; Matter of Bah v. Bah, 112 A.D.3d at 922, 978 N.Y.S......