Published on:

Court Rules on Huntley Hearing


It is reasonable for a patient to seek the independent advice of two experts before embarking on a course of treatment. Two experts may evaluate the same data and may arrive at different conclusions. But it is illogical for a patient to seek a second opinion immediately thereafter from the same expert who rendered the first opinion.

A New York Family Lawyer said tht primilarly in the Family Court where the same judge presides at the Huntley Hearing and the fact-finding hearing, it is illogical to re-litigate the same issues determined at the preliminary hearing by requiring that the testimony at the Huntley Hearing be repeated at the fact-finding hearing.

A Staten Island Family Lawyer said that nothing contained in this article, however, precludes a defendant from attempting to establish at a trial that evidence introduced by the people of a pre-trial statement made by him should be disregarded by the jury or other trier of the facts on the ground that such statement was involuntarily. Even though the issue of the admissibility of such evidence was not submitted to the court, or was determined adversely to the defendant upon motion, the defendant may adduce trial evidence and otherwise contend that the statement was involuntarily made. In a case of a jury trial, the court must submit such issue to the jury under instructions to disregard such evidence upon a finding that the statement was involuntarily made.

The constitutional, statutory and procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings have been promulgated to ensure that an accused will receive a fair trial. These rights must be scrupulously guarded by judges. However, the Court finds no constitutional, statutory or appellate authority which requires two trials on the same issue.

A Staten Island Child Custody Lawyer said in another proceeding, the motion to dismiss is based on the alleged ground that neither the petitioner nor the respondent resides in the County of the Bronx and that both are residents of Nassau County. Assuming that to be the case, the Court does not feel that the attack on the jurisdiction of the Court can be taken seriously. The Family Court being a state Court with exclusive jurisdiction over child support proceedings there can be no question that it has jurisdiction of this case and that this is the only tribunal that can entertain it.

If the motion is considered as an attack based on a defective venue it should be noted that while the petition alleges that the petitioner resides in Uniondale, Long Island, which is in Nassau County, it also alleges that respondent resides at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Bronx County. On the face of the petition, therefore, there is no defect in the venue.

It appears from the record that the respondent amputated both of his hands with a radial saw and that about two weeks later he was admitted to the Veterans Administration Hospital at Kingsbridge Road, Bronx County, where he has remained up to now, for the period of about six and a half months. It appears further that the respondent has been using artificial hands or hooks since four or five weeks prior to March 26, 1965, when a temporary order of child support was entered herein for the petitioner and her 4 1/2 year old child. It further appears that the respondent is neither on remand or detained at such hospital against his will; that he has remained there voluntarily and has come out of the hospital during week-ends.

The Court holds that the respondent’s stay at such hospital for such a period of time made him an inhabitant of the Bronx, that he is a resident of the Bronx, and therefore that the Court has jurisdiction. For the same reason the Court does not feel that there is any defect in the venue. Therefore respondent’s motion to dismiss or to transfer the case to Nassau County is denied.

However, the Court finds that the respondent has violated the order of child support, and, as aforesaid, is $450.00 in arrears, and is trying by all means to avoid complying with the order. There is evidence that the respondent’s attorney collected on behalf of the respondent the sum of $10,000.00, the proceeds of a policy of insurance, and that sometime this year, the said attorney turned over to respondent the said sum of $10,000.00.

The Court does hereby order a hearing on the question of the arrears and the making of a final order. The Court feels that if the respondent is able to come out of the hospital on week-ends, he should be able to appear in the Court; but the Court finds that a summons would be ineffectual and therefore orders the issuance of a warrant for the respondent.

When a parent neglects a child, the life of that child will start to fall apart. If you want to file a legal action against your partner, consult the Bronx County Family Lawyer or the Bronx County Order of Protection Attorney from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. They can help you explore your legal options to win your case.

Contact Information