Kissel v. Kissel, 59 A.D.2d 1036 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Kissel v. Kissel, 59 A.D.2d 1036 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Carney v. Carney (nyappdiv, 2018-03-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carney v. Carney
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
As pertinent here, any person seeking custody of his or her child or "contesting the substantial infringement of his or her right to custody of such child" (§ 262 [a] [v]), as well as "any person in any proceeding before the court in which an order . . . is being sought to hold such person in contempt of the court or in willful violation of a previous order of the court" (§ 262 [a] [vi]), has "the right to have counsel assigned by the court in any case where he or she is financially unable to obtain the same" (§ 262 [a]; see County Law § 722; Judiciary Law § 770; Matter of Bly v Hoffman ,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilder v. Bufe
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
However, the father was not entitled to be advised of his right to the assistance of counsel under Family Ct Act § 262 on his petition to modify the prior child support order (see Matter of Gaudette v Gaudette, supra at 621; Matter of Kissel v Kissel, 59 AD2d 1036, 1037 [1977]; cf. Family Ct Act § 262 [a]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wills v. Wills
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant that the adjudication of criminal contempt cannot stand, because the court failed to advise defendant of his right to the assistance of counsel or elicit his valid waiver of such right before permitting him to proceed pro se (see, Judiciary Law § 770; Matter of Gaudette v Gaudette, 263 AD2d 620, 621 ; Matter of Brainard v Brainard, 88 AD2d 996 ; Matter of Kissel v Kissel, 59 AD2d 1036, 1036-1037; Hickland v Hickland, 56 AD2d 978, 980 ; see generally, Scott v Illinois, 440 US 367, 373-374 ; Argersinger v Hamlin, 407 US 25, 37 ; Annotation, Right to Appointment of Counse…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gaudette v. Gaudette
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · confidence medium
Although Family Court’s dismissal of the modification petition was proper notwithstanding the absence of counsel (see, Matter of Kissel v Kissel, supra, at 1037; see also, Besharov, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 262, at 312), this matter shall be remitted to Family Court for a new hearing on the violation petition (see, Matter of Brainard v Brainard, supra, at 996) since it subjected petitioner to the possibility of incarceration (see, Matter of DeMarco v Raftery, 242 AD2d 625, 626 ).
discussed Cited "see" Brinson v. Brinson (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Contrary to petitioner's contention that she was denied her right to counsel, petitioner did not have a right to counsel in this matter ( see Matter of Leonardo v Leonardo , 94 AD3d 1452 , 1454 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 807 [2012]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [*2]of City of N.Y. v Remy K.Y. , 298 AD2d 261, 262 [1st Dept 2002]; see generally Matter of Kissel v Kissel , 59 AD2d 1036, 1036 [4th Dept 1977]) inasmuch as respondent withdrew his request that she be held in contempt ( see generally Kissel , 59 AD2d at 1036 ).
discussed Cited "see" DUBOIS, IRENE A. v. PIAZZA, STEVE M.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
We further conclude, however, that the court erred in confirming the Support Magistrate’s finding that the father had willfully violated the existing support order before counsel appeared before the Support Magistrate on the father’s behalf (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [vi]; see generally Matter of Kissel v Kissel, 59 AD2d 1036, 1036-1037 [1977]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ullah v. Entezari-Ullah
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
Here, the record is silent as to whether the husband was, as he was entitled to be, advised of his right to counsel during the contempt proceeding (Gifford v Gifford, 223 AD2d 669 [1996]; see also Matter of Kissel v Kissel, 59 AD2d 1036 [1977]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Wilma Kissel
v.
Walter Kissel
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 4, 1977.
59 A.D.2d 1036
1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14322
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

Order unanimously modified, in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: 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 $50 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; that for his willful violation of the judgment of divorce incorporating the Family Court order respondent husband be committed for a period of 30 days to the county jail; that respondent husband may purge himself of the violation by payment within 10 days of the arrearage; that respondent husband shall pay $50 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 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. 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 Ct Act, §§ 261, 262, subd [a], par [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 any case he is financially unable to obtain the same” (Family Ct Act, § 262, subd [a]). The Trial Judge, after the respondent husband claimed that he was financially unable to obtain counsel, did not offer him an adjournment or inform him of his right to have the court assign counsel to him. We find that the respondent husband did not waive his right to counsel. He was not informed of his rights and the record does not show that he had a[*1037] "sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and probable consequences” attendant to such waiver. (Matter of Lawrence S., 29 NY2d 206, 208; see Von Moltke v Gillies, 332 US 708, 724.) Accordingly, those parts of the Family Court order which found the respondent husband in willful violation of a previous court order and those parts which sentenced him to serve in the county jail for such willful violation or until he posts an undertaking must be stricken from it. The remainder of the order may properly stand since there is a viable prior court order which it simply continues and because there is no statutory right which entitles respondent to be assigned counsel in support modification proceedings. We have considered the other points raised by respondent husband on this appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Monroe County Family Court—support—contempt.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Denman, JJ.