Kissel v. Kissel
| Decision Date | 04 November 1977 |
| Citation | 399 N.Y.S.2d 781,59 A.D.2d 1036 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | Application of Wilma KISSEL, Respondent, v. Walter KISSEL, Appellant. |
Louis Gorankoff, Arthur D. Cohen, Rochester, for appellant.
Gould & Maloy, Lewis J. Gould, Rochester, for respondent.
Before CARDAMONE, J. P., and SIMONS, DILLON, HANCOCK and DENMAN, JJ.
Petitioner, Wilma Kissel, commenced this proceeding in Family Court to enforce the support provisions of a stipulation between the parties, incorporated into an order of the Family Court and incorporated in and merged into a decree of divorce dated May 14, 1975. Respondent, Walter Kissel, interposed an answer containing a cross-petition for downward modification of the support provision based upon changed circumstances. The respondent-husband stipulated that he was in arrears $3,605 pursuant to the Divorce Decree. Following a hearing, the Family Court ordered that the previously ordered fifty dollars per week support be continued; that respondent-husband's cross-petition for modification be denied; that respondent-husband is in arrears in the sum of $3,605.00; that for his willful violation of the judgment of divorce incorporating the Family Court order respondent-husband be committed for a period of thirty days to the County Jail; that respondent-husband may purge himself of the violation by payment within ten days of the arrearage; that respondent-husband shall pay $50.00 per week in advance to petitioner-wife for support and maintenance; that respondent-husband be committed to County Jail until he shall post an undertaking in the amount of $7,800.00 to remain in effect for three years pursuant to section 471 of the Family Court Act; and that respondent-husband pay attorney fees in the amount of $2,500.00.
Respondent-husband appeals from this order contending, inter alia, that he was not properly advised of his right to counsel or to be assigned counsel.
An individual who faces contempt for a willful violation of a previous order of the Court has a constitutional right to counsel in such proceedings (Family Court Act §§ 261, 262(a)(iv)). The Family Court Act provides that under the circumstances present in the instant case the Trial Judge "shall advise such person before proceeding, that he has the right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing, of his right to have an adjournment to confer with counsel, and of his right to have counsel assigned by the court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rutherford v. Rutherford
... ... (holding of intermediate appellate court which was not challenged in Supreme Court); In Interest of Holmes, 355 So.2d 677, 679 (Miss.1978); Kissel v. Kissel, 59 A.D.2d 1036, 399 N.Y.S.2d ... Page 360 ... 781 (1977); Hickland v. Hickland, 56 A.D.2d 978, 393 N.Y.S.2d 192 (1977); Rudd v ... ...
-
Zetty v. Piatt
...appellate court which was not challenged in Supreme Court); In Interest of Holmes, 355 So.2d 677, 679 (Miss.1978); Kissel v. Kissel, 59 A.D.2d 1036, 399 N.Y.S.2d 781 (1977); Hickland v. Hickland, 56 A.D.2d 978, 393 N.Y.S.2d 192 (1977); Rudd v. Rudd, 45 A.D.2d 22, 356 N.Y.S.2d 136 (1974); Je......
-
Carney v. Carney
...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 Matter of Jung [State Commn. on Jud. Conduct], 11 N.Y.3d 365, 373, 870 N.Y.S.2d 819, 899 N.E.2......
-
Brinson v. Brinson
...of City of N.Y. v. Remy K.Y. , 298 A.D.2d 261, 262, 748 N.Y.S.2d 732 [1st Dept. 2002] ; see generally Matter of Kissel v. Kissel , 59 A.D.2d 1036, 1036, 399 N.Y.S.2d 781 [4th Dept. 1977] ) inasmuch as respondent withdrew his request that she be held in contempt (see generally Kissel , 59 A.......
-
Equal protection denied in New York to some family law litigants in supreme court: an assigned counsel dilemma for the courts.
...they have a constitutional right to assigned counsel. E.g., Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 37 (1972); Kissel v. Kissel, 399 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782 (App. Div. 1977); Hickland v. Hickland, 393 N.Y.S.2d 192, 195 (App. Div (26.) See generally N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT [section] 262 (McKinney 2001) (pro......