Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sidesgreen2 sentences2019Where, as here, an indigent party has a constitutional right to assigned counsel ( see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iv]), " this entitlement does not encompass the right to counsel of one's own choosing'" ( Matter of Wiley v Musabyemariya , 118 AD3d 898, 900 , quoting People v Porto , 16 NY3d 93, 99 ; see People v Sides , 75 NY2d 822, 824 ; People v Sawyer , 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 ). 2016Where, as here, an indigent party has a constitutional right to assigned counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [iv]), “ ‘this entitlement does not encompass the right to counsel of one’s own choosing’ ” (Matter of Wiley v Musabyemariya, 118 AD3d 898 , 900 [2014], quoting People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99 [2010]; see People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 [1982]). | 2 | 2 |
In re Yarras F.green2 sentences2011Family Ct Act article 7 “does not expressly provide for dismissal of PINS petitions for failure to provide a speedy dispositional hearing” (Matter of Wayne H., 233 AD2d 941 [1996]), and where, as here, respondent’s counsel consented to the adjournment, “[a]ny claimed delay in the commencement of the dispositional hearing does not require dismissal of the petition” (Matter of Yarras F., 5 AD3d 481, 482 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 606 [2004] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Jeffrey D., 41 AD3d 845 , 846-847 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 818 [2008]). 2005Contrary to the appellant’s contention, under the facts of this case, the claimed delay in the commencement of the dispositional hearing does not require reversal (see Family Ct Act § 350.1; Matter of Jose R., 83 NY2d 388 [1994]; Matter of Yarras F., 5 AD3d 481, 482 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Sawyergreen2 sentences2019Where, as here, an indigent party has a constitutional right to assigned counsel ( see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iv]), " this entitlement does not encompass the right to counsel of one's own choosing'" ( Matter of Wiley v Musabyemariya , 118 AD3d 898, 900 , quoting People v Porto , 16 NY3d 93, 99 ; see People v Sides , 75 NY2d 822, 824 ; People v Sawyer , 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 ). 2016Where, as here, an indigent party has a constitutional right to assigned counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [iv]), “ ‘this entitlement does not encompass the right to counsel of one’s own choosing’ ” (Matter of Wiley v Musabyemariya, 118 AD3d 898 , 900 [2014], quoting People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99 [2010]; see People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 [1982]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Portogreen2 sentences2019Where, as here, an indigent party has a constitutional right to assigned counsel ( see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iv]), " this entitlement does not encompass the right to counsel of one's own choosing'" ( Matter of Wiley v Musabyemariya , 118 AD3d 898, 900 , quoting People v Porto , 16 NY3d 93, 99 ; see People v Sides , 75 NY2d 822, 824 ; People v Sawyer , 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 ). 2016Where, as here, an indigent party has a constitutional right to assigned counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [iv]), “ ‘this entitlement does not encompass the right to counsel of one’s own choosing’ ” (Matter of Wiley v Musabyemariya, 118 AD3d 898 , 900 [2014], quoting People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99 [2010]; see People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 [1982]). | 1 | 2 |
Matter of Benjamin L.green1 sentence2014As to his argument that the delay violated his due process rights (see Matter of Benjamin L., 92 NY2d 660, 667-668 [1999]), we do not find that dismissal of the petition was warranted on the ground of a due process violation (see generally Matter of Gordon B., 83 AD3d 1164, 1166 [2011]; Matter of Jermaine J., 6 AD3d 87, 93-94 [2004]; cf. Matter of Richard JJ., 66 AD3d 1152, 1154 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Richard JJ.green1 sentence2014As to his argument that the delay violated his due process rights (see Matter of Benjamin L., 92 NY2d 660, 667-668 [1999]), we do not find that dismissal of the petition was warranted on the ground of a due process violation (see generally Matter of Gordon B., 83 AD3d 1164, 1166 [2011]; Matter of Jermaine J., 6 AD3d 87, 93-94 [2004]; cf. Matter of Richard JJ., 66 AD3d 1152, 1154 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Gordon B.green1 sentence2014As to his argument that the delay violated his due process rights (see Matter of Benjamin L., 92 NY2d 660, 667-668 [1999]), we do not find that dismissal of the petition was warranted on the ground of a due process violation (see generally Matter of Gordon B., 83 AD3d 1164, 1166 [2011]; Matter of Jermaine J., 6 AD3d 87, 93-94 [2004]; cf. Matter of Richard JJ., 66 AD3d 1152, 1154 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Jermaine J.green1 sentence2014As to his argument that the delay violated his due process rights (see Matter of Benjamin L., 92 NY2d 660, 667-668 [1999]), we do not find that dismissal of the petition was warranted on the ground of a due process violation (see generally Matter of Gordon B., 83 AD3d 1164, 1166 [2011]; Matter of Jermaine J., 6 AD3d 87, 93-94 [2004]; cf. Matter of Richard JJ., 66 AD3d 1152, 1154 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
Catton v. Cattongreen1 sentence2011Family Ct Act article 7 “does not expressly provide for dismissal of PINS petitions for failure to provide a speedy dispositional hearing” (Matter of Wayne H., 233 AD2d 941 [1996]), and where, as here, respondent’s counsel consented to the adjournment, “[a]ny claimed delay in the commencement of the dispositional hearing does not require dismissal of the petition” (Matter of Yarras F., 5 AD3d 481, 482 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 606 [2004] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Jeffrey D., 41 AD3d 845 , 846-847 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 818 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Akeem F.green1 sentence2005The appellant’s contention that his placement should have been less restrictive is without merit (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; Matter of Akeem F., 301 AD2d 650, 651 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Santosgreen1 sentence2004The appellant failed to preserve his contention regarding legal insufficiency of the evidence for appellate review (cf. CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Santos, 86 NY2d 869, 870 [1995]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20-21 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Ango H.green1 sentence2004Any claimed delay in the commencement of the dispositional hearing (see Family Ct Act § 350.1) does not require dismissal of the petition under the circumstances presented (see Matter of Jose R., 83 NY2d 388 [1994]; Matter of Andre M., 299 AD2d 967 [2002]; Matter of Ango H., 286 AD2d 500, 501 [2001]; Matter of Wayne H., 233 AD2d 941 [1996]; Matter of Eddie M., 196 AD2d 25 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Graygreen1 sentence2004The appellant failed to preserve his contention regarding legal insufficiency of the evidence for appellate review (cf. CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Santos, 86 NY2d 869, 870 [1995]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20-21 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wiley v. Musabyemariya
green
2 sentences2019Where, as here, an indigent party has a constitutional right to assigned counsel ( see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iv]), " this entitlement does not encompass the right to counsel of one's own choosing'" ( Matter of Wiley v Musabyemariya , 118 AD3d 898, 900 , quoting People v Porto , 16 NY3d 93, 99 ; see People v Sides , 75 NY2d 822, 824 ; People v Sawyer , 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 ). 2016Where, as here, an indigent party has a constitutional right to assigned counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [iv]), “ ‘this entitlement does not encompass the right to counsel of one’s own choosing’ ” (Matter of Wiley v Musabyemariya, 118 AD3d 898 , 900 [2014], quoting People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99 [2010]; see People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 [1982]). | 2 | 2016–2019 |
In re Wayne H.
green
2 sentences2011Family Ct Act article 7 “does not expressly provide for dismissal of PINS petitions for failure to provide a speedy dispositional hearing” (Matter of Wayne H., 233 AD2d 941 [1996]), and where, as here, respondent’s counsel consented to the adjournment, “[a]ny claimed delay in the commencement of the dispositional hearing does not require dismissal of the petition” (Matter of Yarras F., 5 AD3d 481, 482 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 606 [2004] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Jeffrey D., 41 AD3d 845 , 846-847 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 818 [2008]). 2004Any claimed delay in the commencement of the dispositional hearing (see Family Ct Act § 350.1) does not require dismissal of the petition under the circumstances presented (see Matter of Jose R., 83 NY2d 388 [1994]; Matter of Andre M., 299 AD2d 967 [2002]; Matter of Ango H., 286 AD2d 500, 501 [2001]; Matter of Wayne H., 233 AD2d 941 [1996]; Matter of Eddie M., 196 AD2d 25 [1994]). | 2 | 2004–2011 |
Matter of Jose R.
green
2 sentences2005Contrary to the appellant’s contention, under the facts of this case, the claimed delay in the commencement of the dispositional hearing does not require reversal (see Family Ct Act § 350.1; Matter of Jose R., 83 NY2d 388 [1994]; Matter of Yarras F., 5 AD3d 481, 482 [2004]). 2004Any claimed delay in the commencement of the dispositional hearing (see Family Ct Act § 350.1) does not require dismissal of the petition under the circumstances presented (see Matter of Jose R., 83 NY2d 388 [1994]; Matter of Andre M., 299 AD2d 967 [2002]; Matter of Ango H., 286 AD2d 500, 501 [2001]; Matter of Wayne H., 233 AD2d 941 [1996]; Matter of Eddie M., 196 AD2d 25 [1994]). | 2 | 2004–2005 |
In re Anthony A. Catholic Home Bureau
green
1 sentence2022The right to due process encompasses a "meaningful opportunity to be heard" at a fact-finding hearing on a neglect petition ( Matter of Tequan R. , 43 AD3d 673, 679 ), and to "present evidence relevant to the proceedings" ( Matter of Roy Anthony A. , 59 AD2d 662, 663 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Tequan R. v. Joyce McC.
green
1 sentence2022The right to due process encompasses a "meaningful opportunity to be heard" at a fact-finding hearing on a neglect petition ( Matter of Tequan R. , 43 AD3d 673, 679 ), and to "present evidence relevant to the proceedings" ( Matter of Roy Anthony A. , 59 AD2d 662, 663 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
MATTER OF FORJONE v. Beadle
green
1 sentence2011Family Ct Act article 7 “does not expressly provide for dismissal of PINS petitions for failure to provide a speedy dispositional hearing” (Matter of Wayne H., 233 AD2d 941 [1996]), and where, as here, respondent’s counsel consented to the adjournment, “[a]ny claimed delay in the commencement of the dispositional hearing does not require dismissal of the petition” (Matter of Yarras F., 5 AD3d 481, 482 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 606 [2004] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Jeffrey D., 41 AD3d 845 , 846-847 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 818 [2008]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In re Eddie M.
green
1 sentence2004Any claimed delay in the commencement of the dispositional hearing (see Family Ct Act § 350.1) does not require dismissal of the petition under the circumstances presented (see Matter of Jose R., 83 NY2d 388 [1994]; Matter of Andre M., 299 AD2d 967 [2002]; Matter of Ango H., 286 AD2d 500, 501 [2001]; Matter of Wayne H., 233 AD2d 941 [1996]; Matter of Eddie M., 196 AD2d 25 [1994]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In re Andre M.
green
1 sentence2004Any claimed delay in the commencement of the dispositional hearing (see Family Ct Act § 350.1) does not require dismissal of the petition under the circumstances presented (see Matter of Jose R., 83 NY2d 388 [1994]; Matter of Andre M., 299 AD2d 967 [2002]; Matter of Ango H., 286 AD2d 500, 501 [2001]; Matter of Wayne H., 233 AD2d 941 [1996]; Matter of Eddie M., 196 AD2d 25 [1994]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.