New York Family Law Blog

Published on: October 21, 2024

In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, grandmother was denied custody. Linda UU. v. Dana VV. 212 A.D.3d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Linda UU. v. Dana VV. 212 A.D.3d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023), the Family Court of Schenectady County dealt with a custody dispute involving a grandmother’s right to custody against the child’s mother. In New York, courts generally uphold the principle that a parent’s right to custody of their children is paramount. However, under certain exceptional circumstances, the court may consider granting custody to a grandparent. These “extraordinary circumstances” include situations where there has been a prolonged disruption of custody, the parent has abandoned the child, shown persistent neglect, unfitness, or other factors that significantly impact the child’s well-being.

For instance, if a parent voluntarily relinquishes care and control of the child to a grandparent for an extended period, typically 24 continuous months, this can constitute an extended disruption of custody that might justify granting the grandparent custody. Additionally, if a parent persistently neglects the child by failing to maintain substantial, repeated, and continuous contact or fails to plan for the child’s future, these behaviors can also be viewed as extraordinary circumstances.

Background Facts

Published on: October 20, 2024

Diaz v. Gonzalez, 984 N.Y.S.2d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

by Stephen Bilkis

Not surprisingly, issues related to property distribution, spousal maintenance, and child support are among the most contested issues during a divorce. Diaz v. Gonzalez, 984 N.Y.S.2d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) involved a defendant appealing a judgment from the Supreme Court in Queens County regarding maintenance and child support.

Background Facts

The parties in Diaz v. Gonzalez, married on December 28, 1998. The plaintiff moved out of their shared home in September 2005. In March 2010, the plaintiff commenced divorce proceedings. The defendant responded to the action, asserting counterclaims that sought child support and spousal maintenance.

Published on: October 20, 2024

Equitable distribution requires full financial disclosure by both parities. C.M.S. v. W.T.S., 37 Misc. 3d 1228 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a matrimonial trial that spanned several years, a couple’s divorce action finally came to court after years of separation and failed settlement attempts. C.M.S. v. W.T.S., 37 Misc. 3d 1228 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012) involved significant issues, including determining how to distribute marital property.

Background Facts

The couple in this case had been separated since 2007, and their divorce action began in 2008. Throughout the divorce proceedings, both parties exhibited a lack of urgency in settling their financial matters, leading to numerous pretrial conferences without significant progress.

Published on: October 20, 2024

Court finds that wasteful dissipation of assets by wife would impact equitable distribution. Singh v. Singh, 36 Misc. 3d 1218 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

Singh v. Singh, 36 Misc. 3d 1218 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012) involved a divorce action in Queens, New York. The Plaintiff, the wife, initiated the case in 2009, seeking an absolute divorce and additional relief related to financial support, property division, and child custody. One issue that was raised was asset dissipation. Asset dissipation occurs when one spouse improperly uses or transfers marital assets in a way that depletes their value, often in anticipation of divorce or without the consent of the other spouse. This can include excessive spending, selling assets below market value, or mismanaging joint finances. In divorce cases, courts may consider evidence of dissipation when determining the equitable distribution of marital property.

Background Facts

The Plaintiff and Defendant married in 1997 and had two children. During their marriage, they lived together in a house jointly purchased by the Defendant and his father. The Defendant used both his separate savings and marital assets to contribute toward the mortgage on the marital home. Over time, the couple’s financial situation became more complicated as the Defendant and his extended family engaged in additional real estate and business investments. Both parties contributed to the household and its upkeep until they separated in 2006.

Published on: October 20, 2024

Presumption that husband is the father of a child of marriage is difficult to rebut. L.A.S. v. P.M.M.S., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50845 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In matters of family law, the presumption that a child born during a marriage is the biological child of the married couple has long been a central issue in paternity disputes. This presumption can be rebutted, but it requires clear and convincing evidence. In a recent case before the Queens County Supreme Court, the court examined the plaintiff’s attempt to challenge the presumption of legitimacy and request a DNA test to determine paternity.

Background Facts

The case involved a married couple, the plaintiff and the defendant, who had a child together in 2019. In 2022, three years after the child was born, the plaintiff filed a verified complaint seeking custody of the child. The complaint did not initially raise any issue regarding the child’s paternity, nor did it contain any request for a paternity test. Instead, the plaintiff acknowledged the child as being born of the marriage.

Published on: October 20, 2024

Order of protection deemed reasonably necessary based on appellant’s family offenses. Monos v. Monos, 123 A.D.3d 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

by Stephen Bilkis

In family law, an order of protection can serve as a legal tool to prevent harm and ensure the safety of individuals involved in domestic disputes. These disputes often arise out of family offenses, which are specific criminal acts that occur between people who share a family or household relationship. A family offense includes actions such as assault, harassment, stalking, menacing, and other harmful behaviors that place a victim at risk of physical or emotional harm. In the case of Monos v. Monos, 123 A.D.3d 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014), the Appellate Division considered an appeal from an order of protection issued by the Family Court in Queens County.

Background Facts

The case involved a petitioner who sought an order of protection against the appellant in Family Court. The petitioner alleged that the appellant committed several family offenses, including criminal mischief, reckless endangerment, and attempted assault. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that the appellant had threatened her with a fork during an altercation. Based on this conduct, the petitioner requested the court to issue an order of protection, directing the appellant to stay away from her for a specified period.

Published on: October 10, 2024

Court finds that cohabitation is enough to terminate spousal maintenance payments. Sanseri v. Sanseri, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 25128 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Sanseri v. Sanseri, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 25128 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015), the Supreme Court, Monroe County, addressed the termination of spousal maintenance payments, specifically revisiting the standards for terminating maintenance in the absence of remarriage. The issue arose under Section 248 of the Domestic Relations Law (DRL), a provision that outlines when maintenance payments can be modified or terminated. The court had to determine whether a former spouse cohabitating with another person, but not remarried, could be grounds for terminating maintenance.

Background Facts

In this case, the husband and wife were in the process of a divorce, with maintenance payments ordered at the outset due to a significant disparity in their incomes. While the divorce proceedings continued, the husband filed a motion to terminate the maintenance payments. He argued that his wife, though not remarried, had entered into a relationship with another man and had engaged in behaviors that were akin to a marriage.

Published on: October 7, 2024

Family Court, Kings County considered whether it had jurisdiction over a visitation case. R.L.BXXXXX v. C.D.GXXX (In re Custody of R.L.BXXXXX), 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 29090 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

A Final Order of Visitation (FOV) in New York is a legal document issued by the court that establishes the specific rights of a non-custodial parent or other party to have visitation with a child. This order outlines the schedule, duration, and conditions under which visitation will occur, aiming to ensure that the child maintains a meaningful relationship with the non-custodial parent while considering the child’s best interests.

The FOV may include details such as the days, times, and locations for visitation, as well as provisions for holidays, vacations, and special occasions. It may also address transportation arrangements and communication between the parties during visitation periods.

Once issued, the FOV is legally binding, and both parties are expected to comply with its terms. Failure to adhere to the FOV can result in legal consequences, including enforcement actions or modifications of the visitation arrangements by the court.

Published on: October 5, 2024

While wife may not have car, court found no evidence of cruel and inhuman treatment in marriage. D.A. v. B.E., 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50281 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

by Stephen Bilkis

In D.A. v. B.E., 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50281 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005), the D.A. sought a divorce from his wife, B.E.A., under Domestic Relations Law Section 170(1) based on claims of cruel and inhuman treatment. The couple had been married since 2001, and D.A. argued that his wife’s lack of care for his deteriorating health endangered his well-being. The court had to decide whether the evidence provided was enough to grant the divorce on these grounds.

Background Facts

D.A. and B.E.A. were married on June 21, 2001, though they had lived together for several years prior to that date. At the time of the marriage, D.A. was already suffering from asbestosis. Over time, his health worsened. By 2003, he had been diagnosed with emphysema, and later that year, he underwent surgery for lung cancer, which required the removal of one of his lungs. His medical condition left him in chronic pain, requiring continuous pain management, including Percocet and, eventually, morphine.

Published on: October 5, 2024

Grandparents denied custody where foster parents sought to adopt. Carter v. Admin. for Children’s Servs., 176 A.D.3d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

When parents lose custody of their children, the goal of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) is always to permanently place the children in stable family environment. While reunification with bio parents is the best case scenario, adoption is also a positive outcome. Carter v. Admin. for Children’s Servs., 176 A.D.3d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019) involves a custody dispute concerning a child removed from his mother’s care after her arrest. The maternal grandparents, residing in Maine, sought custody of the child, but their petition was dismissed after the mother surrendered her parental rights. The child was then placed for adoption with a foster family.

Background Facts

In January 2016, ACS removed a seven-month-old child from his mother’s care following her arrest for prostitution and child endangerment. After the removal, the child was placed in a nonkinship foster family. The mother faced a neglect proceeding in Family Court, which resulted in a finding of neglect against her. The finding was entered without her admission of neglect but with her consent.