Legal Opinion
Menin v. Menin
New York Supreme Court
Decided September 5, 1974PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJoseph F. G-agliardi, J.
Two potential plaintiffs in proposed divorce actions and a defendant in a divorce action have moved pro se for poor person relief and assignment of counsel to serve *286without fee (CPLB art. 11). For purposes of these motions, the court shall assume, based upon uncontroverted evidence, that movants are indigents as a matter of law (Adkins v. Dupont Co., 335 U. S. 331). Consequently, leave to proceed as poor persons is granted.
By statute, assignment of counsel is a matter within the discretion of the court (CPLB 1102, subd. [a]; Hotel Martha Washington Mgt. Co. v. Swinick, 66 Misc 2d 833).…
2Cases cited61 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Stephan v. SmithSupreme Court of Kansas · 1987
- In re SmileyNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- State Ex Rel. Partain v. OakleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1976
- Family Division Trial Lawyers of the Superior court-d.c., Inc. v. H. Carl Moultrie, Chief Judge, D.C. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Cunningham v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.