Matter of Spencer v Spencer
2010 NY Slip Op 07356 [77 AD3d 761]
October 12, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 15, 2010


In the Matter of Leonie J. Spencer, Appellant,
v
Ronald A.Spencer, Respondent.

[*1]John C. Gray, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Anna Maria Diamanti and Yanfei Shen of counsel), forappellant.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals froman order of the Family Court, Kings County (Sheares, J.), dated September 28, 2009, which deniedthe petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is reinstated, and the matteris remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Family Court Act § 262 (a) (ii) confers the right to the assistance of counsel upon parties inproceedings brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 (see Matter of Knight v Knight, 59 AD3d 445, 446 [2009]). A party,however, may waive the right to counsel, provided that the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent(see People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 103 [2002]; Matter of Jetter v Jetter, 43 AD3d 821, 822 [2007]). To determinewhether a party is validly waiving the right to counsel, the court must conduct a "searching inquiry" ofthe party who wishes to waive that right and thus proceed pro se (People v Slaughter, 78NY2d 485, 491 [1991] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Jetter v Jetter, 43AD3d at 822).

Here, the petitioner was entitled to be represented by counsel, as she was a petitioner in aproceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [ii]).The record, however, is inadequate to demonstrate that the petitioner validly waived her right tocounsel (see Matter of Casey N., 59AD3d 625, 628-630 [2009]; Matter ofMcGregor v Bacchus, 54 AD3d 678, 678-679 [2008]). Accordingly, the order must bereversed, the petition reinstated, and the matter remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for aproper inquiry into whether the petitioner understands the consequences of self representation.Thereafter, as the petitioner's allegations stated a cause of action constituting a family offense pursuantto Family Court Act § 821 (1), a fact-finding hearing must be held on the matter (seeFamily Ct Act § 832). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.