Jetter v. Jetter
844 N.Y.S.2d 322
N.Y. App. Div.
2007
Check Treatment

In the Matter of GRECIA JETTER, Respondent, v BARRY JETTER, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

844 NYS2d 322

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated February 9, 2006, which, after a hearing, directed him to refrain from, inter alia, committing any criminal offense against the wife until February 8, 2008.

Ordered that the order of protection is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new hearing and determination in accordance herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that the temporary order of protection dated November 30, 2005 is reinstated pending the new determination.

A party in a Family Court Act article 8 proceeding has the right to be represented by counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [ii];

). That party, however, can waive the right to counsel and opt for self-representation (see
;
;
). Prior to permitting a party to proceed pro se, the court must determine that the decision to do so is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (see
). To ascertain whether a party‘s waiver of counsel meets these requirements, the court must conduct a “searching inquiry” of that party (
). Although there is no “rigid formula” as to the questions the court needs to ask for counsel waivers, there must be a showing that the party “was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” (
 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the Family Court failed to advise the husband of the risks of self-representation. As such, there was no knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel (see

;
;
;
). Accordingly, we reverse the order of protection and remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new hearing and determination.

The husband‘s remaining contention is without merit.

Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.