must make inquiry in New York

2020Where a party indicates an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel ( see Bader v Hazzis , 77 AD3d 742, 744 ).

2020When a party who is entitled to be represented by counsel asserts an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make an inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel ( see Matter of Pugh v Pugh , 125 AD3d 663, 664 ; Matter of Bader v Hazzis , 77 AD3d 742, 744 ; Gifford v Gifford , 223 AD2d 669, 670 ).

2020When a party who is entitled to be represented by counsel asserts an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make an inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel ( see Matter of Pugh v Pugh , 125 AD3d 663, 664 ; Matter of Bader v Hazzis , 77 AD3d 742, 744 ; Gifford v Gifford , 223 AD2d 669, 670 ).

2019"Where a party indicates an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel" ( Matter of Bader v Hazzis , 77 AD3d 742, 744 ; see Matter of Soto v Willis , 143 AD3d 728, 730 ; Matter of Pugh v Pugh , 125 AD3d 663, 664 ).

2020When a party who is entitled to be represented by counsel asserts an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make an inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel ( see Matter of Pugh v Pugh , 125 AD3d 663, 664 ; Matter of Bader v Hazzis , 77 AD3d 742, 744 ; Gifford v Gifford , 223 AD2d 669, 670 ).

2015When a party who is entitled to be represented by counsel indicates an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make an inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel (see Matter of Pugh v Pugh, 125 AD3d 663, 664 [2015]; Matter of Bader v Hazzis, 77 AD3d 742, 744 [2010]; Gifford v Gifford, 223 AD2d 669, 670 [1996]).

2026Family Court Act § 262(a) provides that such a respondent shall be advised of "the right to have counsel assigned by the court in any case where he or she is financially unable to obtain the same." When a party who is entitled to be represented by counsel indicates an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel ( see Matter of Alphonse v Alphonse , 189 AD3d 1028, 1029 ; Matter of Goodine v Evans , 183 AD3d 649, 651 ).

2026Family Court Act § 262(a) provides that such a respondent shall be advised of "the right to have counsel assigned by the court in any case where he or she is financially unable to obtain the same." When a party who is entitled to be represented by counsel indicates an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel ( see Matter of Alphonse v Alphonse , 189 AD3d 1028, 1029; Matter of Goodine v Evans , 183 AD3d 649, 651).

2026Family Court Act § 262(a) provides that such a respondent shall be advised of "the right to have counsel assigned by the court in any case where he or she is financially unable to obtain the same." When a party who is entitled to be represented by counsel indicates an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel ( see Matter of Alphonse v Alphonse , 189 AD3d 1028, 1029 ; Matter of Goodine v Evans , 183 AD3d 649, 651 ).

2026Family Court Act § 262(a) provides that such a respondent shall be advised of "the right to have counsel assigned by the court in any case where he or she is financially unable to obtain the same." When a party who is entitled to be represented by counsel indicates an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel ( see Matter of Alphonse v Alphonse , 189 AD3d 1028, 1029; Matter of Goodine v Evans , 183 AD3d 649, 651).

2025"Before proceeding in the defendant's absence, the court must make an inquiry and recite on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that the defendant's absence was deliberate" ( People v Brooks , 308 AD2d 99, 104 ; see Correction Law § 168-n[6]).

2025"Before proceeding in the defendant's absence, the court must make an inquiry and recite on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that the defendant's absence was deliberate" ( People v Brooks , 308 AD2d 99, 104; see Correction Law § 168-n[6]).

2019"Where a party indicates an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel" ( Matter of Bader v Hazzis , 77 AD3d 742, 744 ; see Matter of Soto v Willis , 143 AD3d 728, 730 ; Matter of Pugh v Pugh , 125 AD3d 663, 664 ).

2018"Where a party indicates an inability to retain private counsel, the court must make inquiry to determine whether the party is eligible for court-appointed counsel" ( Matter of Bader v Hazzis , 77 AD3d 742, 744 [2d Dept 2010]; see Matter of Otto v Otto , 26 AD3d 498, 499-500 [2d Dept 2006]).

2018In fulfilling that obligation, the court may inquire into the person's financial circumstances, including, but not [*4]limited to, his or her income, expenses, obligations and other relevant financial information ( see Matter of Pugh v Pugh , 125 AD3d 663, 664 [2d Dept 2015]; People v Lincoln , 158 AD2d 545 , 546 [2d Dept 1990]) and, in furtherance of that inquiry, the court may require the submission of documentation ( see Matter of Moiseeva v Sichkin , 129 AD3d 974, 975 [2d Dept 2015]).

2010In making such a determination, the trial court must make inquiry into various factors, including whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge, within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, of the facts constituting the claim, the reasonableness of the excuse proffered for the delay in filing, as well as “whether the delay in serving the notice of claim substantially prejudiced the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits” (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; see Matter of Dewey v Town of Colonie, 54 AD3d 1142, 1142-1143 [2008]; Matter of Heffelfinger v Albany In

2010Airport, 43 AD3d 537, 538-539 [2007]).

2005In response, the People concede that where there is evidence that jurors have been prematurely deliberating, the court must make an inquiry to determine whether the offending jurors can continue to serve (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]).

2003Before proceeding in the defendant’s absence, the court must make an inquiry and recite on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that the defendant’s absence was deliberate (see People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898, 899 [1990]; see also People v Williams, 221 AD2d 674 [1995]).

2003Before proceeding in the defendant’s absence, the court must make an inquiry and recite on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that the defendant’s absence was deliberate (see People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898, 899 [1990]; see also People v Williams, 221 AD2d 674 [1995]).

1998The court must make inquiry “into the substantive nature of the challenged transaction and the board’s approval thereof.” (Aronson v Lewis, supra, at 814.) The trial level court “in the exercise of its sound discretion must be satisfied that a plaintiff has alleged facts with particularity which, taken as true, support a reasonable doubt that the challenged transaction was the product of a valid exercise of business judgment.

1998Only in that context is demand excused.” (Aronson v Lewis, supra, at 815.) Subsequent to the Aronson decision, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware again addressed the issue of rebutting the presumption that the challenged transaction was the product of a valid exercise of business judgment. “[T]he business judgment rule is ‘a presumption that in making a business decision, not involving self-interest, the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company.’ [Citations omitted.] If a