Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and a new determination in accordance herewith.
We agree with the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to counsel when he was not informed of his right to the assistance of counsel on the return of the contempt application ( see, Matter of Kissel v Kissel, 59 A.D.2d 1036). Additionally, the court should have conducted an inquiry to determine whether the defendant should have been appointed counsel as an indigent after he requested counsel at the commitment proceeding ( see, Matter of Williams v Williams, 91 A.D.2d 1044).
The defendant was entitled to a hearing as to whether he was financially able to comply with the child support order since he asserted as a defense to the plaintiff's motion to hold him in contempt and in his cross motion that he did not have the means to pay support ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 246; Boritzer v Boritzer, 137 A.D.2d 477; Hough v Hough, 125 A.D.2d 791).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.