New York Family Law Blog

The appellant of the case is Betty Ann Russell, who is a minor and is represented through her father and her next friend, Fred R. Russell. The appellees in the case are Charles A. Eckert and E.R. Heard and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a corporation, Garnishee-Appellee.

The Appeal

Betty Ann Russell, who is a minor, is appealing a final judgment that was issued by the Hillsborough County Circuit Court after a trial without jury. A New York Family Laywer said the issue of the case was between the plaintiff and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a corporation.

The Original Case

In an action on for personal injuries that were incurred from a car accident, the plaintiff, her father, and her next friend, recovered a judgment against the appellees, Charles A. Eckert and E.R. Heard for the amount of $16,546.10. Eckert was the driver of the vehicle in the accident and Heard owned the vehicle and they were found at fault. This original case took place on November 5, 1964.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that on December 30, 1964, the plaintiff issued a writ of garnishment against Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a corporation. This required Hartford Accident to disclose any indebtedness to the defendant in the case, Heard. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company answered the writ of garnishment with a denial of any indebtedness to Heard. On January 18, 1965, the plaintiff transverses this answer stating that Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company was indebted to Heard in the amount of $10,000 for a liability insurance policy that the defendant held at the time the accident occurred.

A trial was held without a jury on November 18, 1965 and a final judgment was issued in favor of Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company and against the plaintiff.

Case Discussion and Appeal Verdict

The root of this case is whether the policy of liability insurance was in force at the time the accident occurred. A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer said if the insurance was in force, the judgment garnishment should have been made in favor of the plaintiff. However, if this policy was not in force the original judgment was correct.

There is no material conflict of the facts. On the day before the accident occurred, October 9, 1963, Heard contacted Demopaulos’s office to ask for a binder liability insurance policy for 24 hours. This was to be in effect until Heard could make it into the office and arrange for further insurance. Demopaulos agreed to the request and bound heard for 24 hours.

The following day Demopaulos filled out an application for further insurance and the policy was dated October 10, 1963. This is the same date that the accident occurred. Heard had paid his premium that day and the policy became effective as of that time. One problem with this policy is the fact that it was filled out by Demopaulos and he forgot to have Heard sign the document. However, the initial binder liability policy, which Demopaulos had the power to enact, was still in effect when the accident occurred.

This court finds that the original order of the court in favor of Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company was wrong. The policy was in force at the time of the accident and the appeal is granted in favor of the plaintiff.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers free consultations for anyone that may find that they need legal representation, whether you are involved in a divorce, need an order for protetction, or have a custody dispute. The lawyers of Stephen Bilkis & Associates are experts in many fields of the law and can help you determine your rights. The firm has offices located throughout the metropolitan area of New York and you may call any time to set up a time for a consultation.

A New York Family Lawyer said the issue of relocation first came in to the lower court previously when the father's motion to hinder his wife from moving was rendered unsettled when a job opportunity that had precipitated her interest in moving did not come to completion.

However, after an extensive evidentiary proceeding, the court granted the mother’s motion to relocate and the mother moved to other country with her daughter. The father’s motion to stay the relocation pending an appeal was denied by the appellate division as the mother and child then remained in the relocated area. In a decision and order, the appellate division reversed the decision and directed the Supreme Court to fix a date for the production of the child in New York.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said subsequently the Supreme Court, with the consent of the parties, determined that the interests of the child would best be served by permitting her to complete the school year in the relocated area. At a court conference, the parties acknowledged that the child was unhappy with her father about being forced to return to his custody in New York. For that reason, it was agreed that the child would return to New York in early July and that thereafter she and her father would participate in a series of therapeutic visitation sessions under the supervision of a clinical psychologist. The plan was to hold two sessions during the week following her arrival and two more sessions during the following week.
Pursuant to the agreement, the child was brought to New York during the first week of July and having no place of their own and with the strained relationship between the child and her father, the mother and her child were quartered in the home of her maternal aunt, along with some eight other relatives.

The child was interviewed by the doctor on her initial therapeutic visitation. The session was a disaster because the child wept uncontrollably in the presence of her father and her father made absolutely no effort to neither deal with the child's emotional breakdown nor comfort her in any way.

Efforts to schedule further therapeutic visitations with the doctor during the summer as previously agreed were unsuccessful. A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer said first is because the father failed to communicate with the doctor until the latter part of July and subsequently, because the father choose to take his new wife and other children on a three week vacation in August where he stayed with his new wife's relatives.

For the reason of aforementioned vacation, the father absented himself from the session of the court. The child and her mother who remained in the overcrowded home of the maternal aunt, did appear. The court conducted an in camera interview of the child, in the presence of her attorney, but outside of the presence of her mother and the two attorneys for the parties. During the interview the child described her experiences in the relocated area with her mother over the past year as well as her feelings and desires concerning her future.

In open court, the counsel of the mother indicated his intention to serve and file a new motion for permission to relocate the child. The court recognizes the imminent need to register the child in a school, the unacceptable temporary living conditions that the mother and child were enduring, the increasing difficulty of the mother remaining away from her job, and the fact that the father was going to be out of the country for most of the month. With that, it was concluded that the best interests of the child required that she and her mother be permitted to temporarily return to their place.

With the commencement of a new school year on the horizon and in anticipation of a new motion to relocate, the court sought to conduct a new evidentiary proceeding by the end of August, that is, as soon as the father would return from the vacation. Unfortunately, the three necessary attorneys were unable to agree upon a short adjourned date and the case was adjourned.

The mother and the child returned to their place. The child registered in school where she remains as of the date of the decision and order. During the provisional period, the counsel for the father served and filed a court order of prohibition in the appellate division because that court rejected the father’s counsel's request for a temporary restraining order. The court was able to conduct a proceeding. During the pendency of the continued trail, the appellate division denied the court order on the merits. The hearing on the motion was completed and after which decision was reserved.

Based on records, in making a decision whether or not to grant a motion to relocate, the court must look with previous decision. On the outlines of a series of factors the court may consider the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and non-custodial parents, the impact of the relocation on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the non-custodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parents and child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-custodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements and it is beyond that the primary focus must be on the best interests of the child.

The father's counsel has argued that the appellate division's decision is dispositive of the issue of relocation and that the Supreme Court has no power to consider the merits of the instant motion. However, the court disagrees on which the appellate division's denial of father's court order of prohibition on the merits would appear to dispose of the claim. Further, the appellate division affirmed a lower court's decision to grant a second motion to relocate, based upon a change of situation even though the appellate court had previously ruled that relocation was inappropriate. In reaching to the decision, the court has not only considered whether relocation is in the best interests of the child, but also whether the situation has changed since the order rendered previously.

The court decides that the motion to relocate the child is granted. The court also ordered that the father shall exercise parenting time on the second weekend of every month unless both parties agree on other weekends. It is ordered that the father must be available at all visits with the child, spend his parenting time with the child and not leave the child with other relatives or friends. If the father cannot fulfill the said terms he will forfeit the visit or make it up. It is also ordered that the father must notify the mother as soon as he knows when the visit/s will take place, giving her reasonable time to prepare the child for the said visit. The father must exercise parenting time with the child on Thanksgiving Day and thanksgiving weekend every year. It is also ordered that the child shall spend Christmas Day with the mother and the mother shall determine where she wants to spend Christmas Day. The child shall spend four consecutive weeks with her father during her summer vacation. The father must notify the mother what month he wishes to exercise during the summer as soon as he knows his summer schedule. The airfare and other transportation expenses for both the child and the mother shall be paid by the father for parenting time. Lastly, it is ordered that any other visitation shall be exercised as mutually agreed to by the parties.

For every separated couple, the kids suffer a lot. They are the first persons who will get affected by the situation and a lawyer can provide you direction and better understanding of your legal problems. If you are a parent who wants to fight for the care of your children, an experienced lawyer can offer you proper guidance. Whether you are involved in a divorce, or need an Order for Protection, contact our office for assistance.

A mother had filed an appeal against an order that disallows her to move to Texas with her two children. The mother had two sons with the father. They were born three years apart, said a New York Family Lawyer. Almost five years after the youngest was born, the parents divoced. In the final judgment for the dissolution of marriage, the court had them share parental responsibility. The custody of the children was given to the mother, with the father getting liberal visitation. The decision specifically said that the visitation is at least one night in a week plus every other weekend. A restriction on the relocation of the mother and the children was not provided in the decision.

The mother and her new husband lives in Texas with his son. They met when he was assigned in their area for an extended period. About a year and three months after the dissolution of the marriage was finalized, the mother filed a petition to change the visitation provisions because she will be marrying her new husband, and they would be moving to Texas. The father filed a case with the court asking for an injunctive relief. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said this was to prevent the mother from moving the children to Texas. It was granted by the court.

A final hearing was done in November 2004 where the new husband, the mother and the father testified. The new husband said he was a right-of-way agent for the oil and gas industry. According to him, he earns about $70,000 to $90,000 per year, his line of work though is not open in the current State. The mother's testimony mentioned the benefits of moving the children to the smaller community of Ponder, Texas. She said her new husband has a new 3000-square-foot home and that there was a public school nearby. According to a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer, the mother testified she was currently earning $58,000 per year, and can be promoted in her current employment. Once they move, she planned to be a stay at home mother, but if necessary, she could find a comparable employment in Texas. Although she does not have family in Texas, they are just two and a half hours away in Oklahoma. The father said he works nights, from eleven in the evening to half past seven in the morning. According to him, if he missed any scheduled visitation, it was because of work. Their normal activity of boating, fishing, bowling and other recreational stuff often include the children’s paternal grandparent, aunts, uncles and cousins.

A Nassau County Order of Protection Lawyer said that the court ruled the proposed visitation schedule to be adequate, but they did not see the move as for the best interest of the children. The Trial Court denied the mother’s motion. The mother appealed against the decision. The review of the Court of Appeals said, the mother was able to show improvement on her life as well as her husband’s, but was not able to prove the relocation to be beneficial to the children. From what the law says, the priority is the best interest of the children.

It is not always that the court prevents a parent from moving out State with their children. If they are able to prove it is advantageous to the children, the request will be granted. The child’s welfare is always the priority.

Continue reading "Court Denies Proposed Relocation of Parent" »

New York Divorce Lawyer Reports: Woman Runs over Husband’s Ex-Wife.

At a local ball park in Alabama, a woman subjected at least seventy witnesses, many of whom were young children, to the horrific scene of her running over her husband’s ex-wife and daughter – not once, but three times.

Police say the 43-year-old woman is charged with two counts of attempted murder and one count of reckless endangerment. She was released on bond. It is possible that the woman will have additional charges brought against her.

Apparently, the scene started after a little league game when two women got into an argument. The root of the problem was a custody issue involving the victim’s children. As the situation escalated, one woman became violent and used the biggest weapon she could find – her car.

Authorities responded to an emergency call, and when the chief arrived at the city park, he saw a sizeable crowd had formed around a car. Supposing that the crowd was at the crime scene, he approached and after getting eye-witness reports, the chief ascertained that the accused woman did indeed use her vehicle as a weapon. She first ran over the daughter, pinning her against the car. She then backed up and ran over the mother. She backed up again and ran over her again. The woman attacked multiple times when after the first one, the victim was in no shape to retaliate.

According to reports from victims’ family, the mother had to go through surgery for a broken leg, broken back, and a broken pelvis the next morning. Her recovery will be a long process.

Thankfully, the child suffered minor injuries to her leg but is otherwise physically fine.
Any psychological or mental trauma apparent in the child hit and the child witnesses is unknown at this time. Speculation will reveal that some children are probably in need of psychological help.

There has also been no word on the victim’s ex-husband. His location at the time of the incident has not yet been provided.

If you are filing for divorce, or need assistance with child visitation issues, or perhaps need an order for protection, it is important to speak with quality legal counsel right away.

Continue reading "Woman Runs over Husband’s Ex-Wife" »

A distressed mother of an alleged 14-year-old alleged murderer has just been charged with entering the United States illegally, according to New York Family Lawyers and is facing deportation.

The 43-year-old suspect was arrested with her husband and taken from their apartment, where they lived for nearly eight years to be federally charged with illegal re-entry after previous deportation according to local police reports.

In 1997, the mother was originally deported for possession of rock cocaine according to police reports. No records indicated that she applied to be reinstated to the United States. Her husband was originally deported back in May of 2002.

It is unknown what prompted the arrest, but authorities said the couple was arrested and taken away in front of their other elementary school-aged children. The children were also taken from the couple at the scene. Custody is always an issue in counties like Nassau and Suffolk.

The 14-year old alleged murderer, who admitted to participating in at four beheadings, is currently in a protected location while Mexican Authorities search for evidence of citizenship and other details about the boy who was supposedly born in San Diego.

Authorities continue to investigate whether or not the two older sisters had ties to organized crime. They are currently being held in a Mexico City detention facility.

In a similar story, three men were arrested this week for possibly working for the same drug group located in Cuernavaca. Arresting army troops were led to an area where these men allegedly buried at least two of their homicide victims.

Continue reading "Family charged for Illegal Entry to the US" »