Articles Posted in Bronx

The parties were married in June 1973, and had one child, born on 1978. Sometime in 1985, the plaintiff husband moved out of the marital home. The wife cashed the parties’ joint certificate of deposit in the amount of $500. The husband took the parties’ 1984 Mazda pick-up truck, which was subsequently stolen, while the wife retained their 1982 Buick Skylark, which was worth $4000. Initially, a New York Custody Lawyer said the wife instituted a separation action in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. After the husband brought an action for divorce in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in which the wife counterclaimed, the wife abandoned her separation action. However, she was granted pendente lite relief of $40 per week in maintenance and $35 per week in child support by order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that following a trial on the Nassau County action for divorce, in which the husband withdrew his complaint for divorce in favor of the wife’s counterclaim, and after the parties entered into a stipulation providing for an equal division of the parties’ furniture and household effects and the proceeds from any court-ordered sale of the marital residence, the trial court found that (1) the wife was not entitled to an equitable share of the retroactive pay received by the husband because there was no evidence that the cash remained on hand or that it was converted into an asset, (2) the marital residence must be sold within 90 days to provide for the parties’ future living expenses and to pay off the marital debts, (3) the wife owed the husband $4,500 for her retention of the parties’ Buick automobile, valued at $4,000, and for her appropriation of their jointly held certificate of deposit in the amount of $500; the $4,500 was to be paid to him out of the net proceeds from the sale of the marital residence, and (4) the husband owed the wife $3,355 in retroactive maintenance and child support, which was also payable out of the net proceeds of the marital residence. Furthermore, the trial court ordered that the husband pay the wife $60 per week maintenance for a period of five years, and $70 per week in child support, but refused to provide for the payment of the child’s continued parochial school education.

At the trial, it was determined that the wife had been employed by a bank for 15 years. She originally worked full time and was placed in a career management program but had limited her employment to part time upon the birth of the parties’ child. Her 1985 salary was $7,809. The husband had been employed as a corrections officer for 25 months prior to the time of the trial. His projected 1986 salary was $30,732.

Continue reading

Petitioner applied for public assistance and medicaid from the Nassau County Department of Social Services for herself and her unborn child. At the time of the application, she was 20 years old and living separate and apart from her husband and residing in the home of her parents. Without any factual determination concerning the amount of support actually furnished by her parents, the Nassau County Department of Social Services, by letter, notified petitioner that her application for eligibility for public assistance was being denied.

A New York Family Lawyer said following a fair hearing proceeding the hearing officer rendered a decision affirming the denial of assistance by the Nassau County Department of Social Services on the grounds that: When a pregnant woman applies for public assistance for her unborn child and her needs are being met, the unborn child has no unmet needs.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that petitioner commenced this Article 78 proceeding wherein she seeks to annul the determination after the fair hearing challenging the alleged practice and policy of respondents of 1) denying public assistance to married minors on the grounds that they are the legal responsibility of their parents; (2) denying eligibility of married minors for public assistance by assuming resources of legally non-responsible relatives is available for their support without a finding that such resources are in fact being expended for the minor’s support; and 3) denying eligibility of the unborn child for public assistance on the grounds that the pregnant mother’s needs are being met and the unborn child is precluded from establishing independent needs.

Continue reading

The issue presented is whether the trial court properly relieved the complainant’s natural guardian and replaced her with an attorney.

A New York Family Lawyer said a two weeks-years-old infant was diagnosed with infantile impetigo. His pediatrician prescribed an antibacterial skin cleanser, to be rubbed into the blisters on the skin with each diaper change and then rinsed off. The infant’s mother claims that within 48 hours after she started applying the antibacterial skin cleanser, the baby became very irritable, with greenish stools and flaking skin. The mother used the entire 16-ounce bottle within nine days and thereafter renewed her prescription.

Subsequently, the infant’s pediatrician diagnosed the infant’s condition with diaper rash, but the mother claims that the pediatrician urged her to continue the use of the antibacterial skin cleanser. The infant allegedly continued to be irritable and have loose, foul-smelling, green-colored stool. Further, unusual body movements, such as twitching, stiffening, and staring were observed, and the baby was diagnosed with seizures.

Continue reading

In a divorce action, the plaintiff wife appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendant husband’s counterclaim for a conversion divorce and awarded custody of the parties’ infant children, visitation, child support and occupancy of the marital residence pursuant to the terms of a separation agreement.

Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for determination of plaintiff wife’s causes of action for divorce and ancillary issues, and entry of judgment in favor of defendant on his counterclaim for a conversion divorce is stayed pending that determination.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the parties were married in 1969 in Kansas, and thereafter moved to Suffolk County, New York. They have three sons, born in 1969, 1971, and 1975, respectively. In 1982, the parties executed and filed a written separation agreement. The agreement was drawn by use of a “do it yourself” kit, and neither party was represented by counsel. The agreement provided, inter alia, for custody, child support, visitation, a mutual waiver of support, maintenance and alimony, ownership and possession of the marital residence, distribution of personal property, and a mutual waiver of inheritance rights. The agreement further provided that it would be incorporated by reference in any subsequent divorce decree and would survive, not merge in, any such decree.

Continue reading

In a child support modification proceedings under the Family Court Act, a wife seeks an order of the Court modifying upwards the child support provisions of a December 1973 divorce decree entered between the parties, which provisions were adopted and made part of an enforcement order entered in Court on October 18, 1976.

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties were married in New York in 1958, with eight children being born of the union. By divorce decree, the husband was directed to pay $20.00 per week for each of the eight children, for a total of $160.00 per week. The wife now seeks an increase of the $20.00 per child, per week figure, alleging the increased needs of the children, and the husband’s improved ability to pay.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the t issue is the time from which the required change in circumstances is to be measured. The Court record of the prior proceedings between the parties indicates that orders were made relative to the husband’s support obligation on March 13, 1984, November 16, 1983, May 3, 1982, April 17, 1981, February 4, 1980, November 21, 1978, and October 18, 1976 (the original enforcement order).

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said on 5 October 1982, the parties were separated in a matrimonial action by a judgment of separation of the Supreme Court of Queens County. Thereafter, an amended judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court of Queens County, under a different judge, dated 17 November 1987, which, upon a de novo hearing on the issue of custody directed by order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, dated 18 December 1986, inter alia, directed that the defendant mother return her daughter to the State of New York where the child shall reside with the plaintiff father and awarded custody of the child to the plaintiff father with liberal visitation by the defendant mother in Denver, Colorado, or in New York, with leave to the defendant mother to move for modification of the amended judgment so as to give her custody of the child, with liberal visitation to the plaintiff father, upon submission of appropriate proof that the defendant mother has returned to the State of New York.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the defendant mother appeals from the amended judgment. The appellate court ordered that the amended judgment is reversed, on the law and on the facts, with costs, and custody of the child is awarded to the defendant mother with liberal visitation to the plaintiff father during the Christmas and Easter school recesses and one-half the summer vacation period, with the cost of the child’s airfare between New York and Colorado to be shared equally by the parties.

The events that took place are as follows:

A New York Family Lawyer said that, this proceeding was commenced pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules by notice of petition dated July 13, 2006 to “strike down” those portions of the Citywide Standards of Discipline and Intervention Measures (the Standards) promulgated by the Chancellor of the New York City School District which forbid students from bringing cellular telephones (cell phones) into public schools in the New York City School District (the Cell Phone Rules) without authorization.

A New York Order of Protection Lawyer said that, the petitioners are eight parents who have children presently enrolled in public schools in the city and the Chancellor’s Parent Advisory Council. Respondents are the New York City Board of Education, doing business as New York City Department of Education, Chancellor of the New York City School District, and the Mayor of the City New York. The challenged Cell Phone Rules are a single item in the 26-page Standards adopted by the respondents to carry out its obligation to adopt a code of behavior under Education Law § 2801. The Cell Phone Rules, denoted as prohibition level 1, A04 for kindergarten through grade 5, and B05 for grades 6 through 12 under the list of infractions (collectively, the Cell Phone Rules), proscribe “bringing prohibited equipment or material to school without authorization (e.g., cell phone, beeper, or other electronic communication/entertainment devices).”

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, the Standards are structured to set forth five escalating levels of disruptive behavior. The lowest level, level 1, is insubordinate behavior, level 2 is disorderly disruptive behavior, level 3 is seriously disruptive or dangerous behavior, level 4 is dangerous or violent behavior, level 5 is severely dangerous or violent behavior. Standards level 1 lists 10 proscribed behaviors for kindergarten through grade 5 and 12 for grades 6 through 12, which include the Cell Phone Rules. For each level of infraction the code provides for level appropriate “possible disciplinary responses.” The Standards also include a five-page “Bill of Student Rights and Responsibilities, K-12.”

Continue reading

A mother of a boy, now age seven, has been the subject of child protective proceedings since he was ten- weeks-old. The boy is currently placed in foster care as a result of the most recent order of disposition issued by the Court against his mother, the Respondent.

A New York Family Lawyer said the mother has volunteered to participate in an instructional film being produced by her attorneys and has consented to the filming and participation of the boy as well. The Legal Aid Society, representing the boy and the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) oppose such filming and have asked the Court to find that the use and dissemination of the boy’s image and identity is against his best interests and should be prohibited. For the reasons that follow, the Court conducted a hearing to determine whether the mother’s consent to the filming of her son should stand or whether her consent must be overridden.

The Respondent-mother was first brought before Bronx County Family Court after ACS filed a child neglect petition in October 2004, naming the boy as the subject child. The boy was a ten-week-old infant at the time of the filing. In June 2005, the then-presiding judge awarded the mother an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD), pursuant to Family Court Act. The mother successfully completed the requirements of the ACD and the case was dismissed by operation of law in May 2006.

In this visitation/child custody proceeding, the parties resided together as a couple at the time of their daughter’s birth. A New York Family Lawyer said within several weeks, respondent and daughter vacated the home and moved to New Jersey, where respondent filed and obtained the equivalent of a temporary order of protection from a Camden, New Jersey court based upon alleged physical and verbal abuse by plaintiff. The parties have been engaged in nearly continuous litigation since the daughter was approximately eight weeks old, with the exception of the five year hiatus.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that after a hearing in which the New Jersey court did not completely hear his side of the events, the New Jersey court issued a restraining order and directed that Petitioner pay compensation to the mother. Petitioner was also ordered to pay child support, an order with which the father admittedly did not comply. According to the father’s testimony, the mother did sue him successfully to enforce the child support order. What ultimately happened to the New Jersey order is not completely clear. The father averred that this order was reversed on appeal and that the parties were “bound over to Manhattan Family Court” because of “jurisdictional issues”.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said in January 1997, Respondent moved to the Bronx with the daughter. After the New Jersey court adjudicated that proceeding without issuing a final order of custody, petitioner visited with daughter sporadically for the next few years. The father’s testimony concerning his contact with the subject child during the very early years of the daughter’s life appears inconsistent and somewhat puzzling. At one point, the father testified that from 1996 to 1998, he knew that the daughter resided with the mother in New Jersey. He stated that he did not file any court papers seeking visitation because he wanted visitation in New York City, but knew that he could not compel visitation in that location. In fact, the mother moved to The Bronx several months after temporarily residing in New Jersey in 1996.

Continue reading