Calling Family Court Judge Marlene Budd's refusal to let a father in a custody and visitation matter proceed pro se "predetermined and unreasonable," a Second Department panel has ruled another judge should take the case on remand.
July 10, 2013 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Faulting a Family Court judge for her "predetermined and unreasonable refusal" to let a father proceed pro se in a custody and visitation matter, a Brooklyn appellate panel has ruled another judge should take the case on remand.
Family Court Judge Marlene Budd in Suffolk County "committed reversible error by depriving the father of his right to self-representation," a unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled in Matter of Massey v. Van Wyen, 2012-04016.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.
Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers & financiers at THE MULTIFAMILY EVENT OF THE YEAR!
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
Join the Mendocino County District Attorney s Office and work in Mendocino County home to redwoods, vineyards and picturesque coastline. ...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
