In the Matter of Kaden J.M. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Quianna J. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Rihana J.H. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Quianna J. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) Docket Nos. N-2583-16, N-2584-16
Brooklyn Defender Services, Brooklyn, NY (Lisa
Schreibersdorf, Susannah Karlsson, Sarah Lorr, and Dechert
LLP [Matthew L. Mazur and Negin Hadaghian], of counsel), for
respondent-appellant in Proceeding No. 1 and appellant in
Proceeding No. 2.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Jane L.
Gordon, Michael Pastor, and Jeremy Shweder of counsel), for
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Tamara Steckler and John
A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for the children.
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY
(Kristen-Elise F. Brooks of counsel), for amicus curiae New
York State Defenders Association.
Richard D. Willstatter, White Plains, NY, Brendan White, New
York, NY, and Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York, NY
(Barry A. Bohrer and Abigail F. Coster of counsel), for amici
curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and
New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (one
Salahi, New York, NY (Ronald J. Tabak of counsel), for amici
curiae Immigrant Defense Project, My Sisters' Place, Her
Justice, Lansner and Kubitschek, Legal Services NYC, Giskan
Solotaroff & Anderson LLP, and MFY Legal Services.
York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY (Robert
Hodgson, Mariana Kovel, and Arthur Eisenberg of counsel),
amicus curiae pro se.
C. BALKIN, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, VALERIE
BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
by the mother from an intake order of the Family Court, Kings
County (Alicea Elloras, J.), dated February 1, 2016. The
intake order, insofar as appealed from, provided that
"records, reports, photographs or other documents
provided pursuant to this order, shall not be disclosed to
counsel not assigned to this matter" and that
"[f]ailure to comply with this Order may result in the
imposition of sanctions."
that the intake order is affirmed insofar as appealed from,
without costs or disbursements.
Family Court Act article 10 proceeding alleging child abuse,
the Family Court, Kings County, issued an intake order
addressing various issues. As relevant here, the order
concludes with the following provision:
"RECORDS, REPORTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THIS ORDER, SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED TO
COUNSEL NOT ASSIGNED TO THIS MATTER.
"Failure to comply with this Order may result in the
imposition of sanctions."
mother (hereinafter the appellant) challenges this provision
of the intake order. She contends, among other things, that
it violates both her statutory and constitutional rights to
counsel by compromising her ability to obtain informed advice
from her attorney in a related ...