Phelps v. Hunter
| Decision Date | 21 December 2012 |
| Citation | 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08973,101 A.D.3d 1689,957 N.Y.S.2d 526 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Cindy M. PHELPS and Augustus T. Phelps, Petitioners–Respondents, v. Eugene Dexter HUNTER, Respondent–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
101 A.D.3d 1689
957 N.Y.S.2d 526
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08973
In the Matter of Cindy M. PHELPS and Augustus T. Phelps, Petitioners–Respondents,
v.
Eugene Dexter HUNTER, Respondent–Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec. 21, 2012.
[957 N.Y.S.2d 527]
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant.
Robert F. Rhinehart, Syracuse, for Petitioners–Respondents.
Karen J. Docter, Attorney for the Child, Fayetteville, for Shakir E.H.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
[101 A.D.3d 1689]Respondent father appeals from an order granting the nonparent petitioners sole legal and physical custody of the father's minor child. We affirm for reasons stated in the amended findings of fact and decision at Family Court. We add only that there is no merit to the father's contention that the Court Attorney Referee lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter ( see generallyCPLR 4317[a] ). The father signed the requisite consent and, although he signed that consent before being informed of his right to counsel pursuant to Family Court Act § 262(a), he and his attorney willingly participated in the subsequent proceedings without objection and with the full knowledge that the Court Attorney Referee would adjudicate the merits of the petition ( see Matter of Carlos G. [ bernadette M.], 96 A.D.3d 632, 633, 947 N.Y.S.2d 468;1199 hous. corp. v. Jimco Restoration Corp., 77 A.D.3d 502, 502, 909 N.Y.S.2d 429;Dodge v. Lynch, 55 A.D.3d 314, 315, 865 N.Y.S.2d 60,lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 713, 873 N.Y.S.2d 268, 901 N.E.2d 762;cf. Matter of Gale v. Gale, 87 A.D.3d 1011, 1012, 929 N.Y.S.2d 495;[101 A.D.3d 1690]Matter of Osmundson v. Held–Cummings, 306 A.D.2d 950, 950–951, 761 N.Y.S.2d 923).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Islam v. Lee
...record demonstrates that the parties executed a stipulation consenting to such a reference ( see CPLR 4317[a]; Matter of Phelps v. Hunter, 101 A.D.3d 1689, 957 N.Y.S.2d 526;cf. Matter of McClarin v. Valera, 108 A.D.3d 719, 968 N.Y.S.2d 899;Matter of Stewart v. Mosley, 85 A.D.3d 931, 932, 92......
-
Sturnick v. Hobbs
...on the ground that he signed the stipulation before being advised of his right to counsel (see Matter of Phelps v. Hunter , 101 A.D.3d 1689, 1689-1690, 957 N.Y.S.2d 526 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 862, 2013 WL 1235521 [2013] ; cf. Matter of Gale v. Gale , 87 A.D.3d 1011, 1012, 929......
- Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Gloria R. (In re Elsa R.)
- People v. Zimmerman