Long Island

Published on: November 16, 2013

Court Redetermines Child Support Order

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties, married in 1978 and subsequently divorced, have been before in Court on three prior occasions stemming from petitioner’s January 1995 application for an upward modification of respondent’s weekly child support obligation for the parties’ two children, born in 1980 and 1983. A New York Family Lawyer said the decision rendered, the Court reversed Family Court’s order which set respondent’s weekly child support obligation and remitted the matter for further record articulation of the factors supporting Family Court’s determination to deviate from the application of the statutory percentage to the parties’ combined income. Upon remittal, the Hearing Examiner made some additional findings but adhered to the weekly child support order. Family Court, by order, denied petitioner’s objections and confirmed the Hearing Examiner’s order.

A Delaware County Family attorney said that petitioner commenced an action seeking an upward modification of the order based upon respondent’s increased earnings and a decrease in her household income. A New York Custody Lawyer said the petitioner also sought a nunc pro tunc modification of the order, pursuant to Family Court Act § 451, claiming that respondent had concealed earned overtime income at the time of the original support hearing. She also sought a direction that respondent pay his future child support through the Child support Collection Unit and an award of counsel fees. Family Court modified its order in an order entered. The court increased respondent’s weekly child support obligation retroactive to April 7, 1997, granted petitioner’s request for the payment of future child support through the Child support Collection Unit and denied her applications for a nunc pro tunc order and for counsel fees.

Petitioner appeals.

Published on: November 10, 2013

Court Discusses Visitation Rights for Grandparents

by Stephen Bilkis

Petitioner is the paternal grandfather of 2 infants. Respondent is the natural mother of the infants. The children’s father was killed in an accident.

A New York Family Lawyer said the paternal grandfather has petitioned this court for an order directing child visitation with the infants. An amended petition was filed thereafter. The natural mother has opposed the petition, having previously terminated visitation between the paternal grandfather and the children in June 1999.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, respondent’s attorney filed a motion for dismissal, relying upon the a ruling of the Court where the United States Supreme Court held that a State of Washington statute governing nonparental child visitation infringed on the fundamental right of a parent to make a decision about the care, custody and control of the parent’s child. The Court deemed this a violation of the parental substantive due process guarantee contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. In opposition, petitioner’s attorney has argued that said case should be limited to its facts, and the statute involved in that case was overly broad and is distinguishable from the New York statute.

Published on: October 30, 2013

Court Discusses Domestic Relations Law

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a proceeding pursuant to article 3-A of the Domestic Relations Law (the Uniform Support of Dependents Law), petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court Queens County, dated November 1, 1976, which denied her motion for a “rehearing and reconsideration” of an order of the same court, dated April 12, 1976, which, on her application for increased child support, directed the respondent father to pay $50 per week for the support of the parties’ two infant children.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, the parties to this appeal were married on August 14, 1965. There are two infant children of the marriage; they were born on February 25, 1966 and December 15, 1967, respectively. On November 17, 1971 the parties executed a separation agreement in which the respondent agreed to pay child support of $20 per week, per child, and alimony of $30 per week. A judgment of divorce was entered on May 5, 1972 in the Supreme Court, Queens County predicated on the separation agreement.

A Long Island Family Lawyer said that, on September 17, 1975 the appellant wife petitioned the Family Court, Dutchess County, for support. The proceeding was transferred to the Family Court, Queens County. By order dated November 14, 1975 that court directed respondent to pay child support in the amount of $40 per week. On February 19, 1976 the wife petitioned the Family Court, Dutchess County, for an upward modification of child support. That application was also transferred to the Family Court, Queens County, which conducted a hearing on April 12, 1976 and granted an increase of $5 per week, per child, as requested by the wife’s assigned counsel, the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. The wife was not present at this hearing.

Published on: September 30, 2013

Court Discusses Eviction of Family Member

by Stephen Bilkis

In this Special Proceedings case, petitioners are the owners of the Subject Property. Respondent moved into the Subject Property with her paramour after learning she was pregnant with the subject child. Petitioner’s husband is the biological father. The parties acknowledged that there are no custody or child support matters pending.

A New York Family Lawyer said that for almost 7 months, Respondent and the paramour resided together at the Subject Property. Petitioner, who resides in the property adjoining the Subject Property, was aware that respondent had moved into the property with her son. Thereafter, while the paramour was incarcerated, respondent continued to reside in the Subject Property without the co-petitioner. The child was born in February 2008 and has lived in the Subject Property with respondent since birth. Apparently, the paramour and respondent at some point had become engaged, but never married, and according to respondent, the engagement ended in April 2009. Co-petitioner, paramour has since returned to prison and, according to petitioner, it is anticipated that her son will be released in or about January 2010.

It is undisputed that respondent has continued to reside in the Subject Property uninterrupted for a period of more than two (2) years. A New York Custody Lawyer said there was no testimony that petitioner ever resided in the Subject Property. Co-petitioner is listed as the sole borrower on the mortgage for the Subject Property, and according to the credible documentary evidence, the Subject Property is the subject of a foreclosure proceeding pending in Suffolk County Supreme Court. Thereafter, Co-petitioner deeded one-half interest in the Subject Property to petitioner to assist with the mortgage arrears.

Published on: September 20, 2013

Court Reviews Child Support Standards

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, an action for divorce was filed by plaintiff against his spouse before the Family Court, Suffolk County. After trial, the Family Court ordered a judgment of divorce with a stipulation of settlement. The said stipulation contains child support and maintenance provisions.

Later, a New York Family Lawyer said the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and asking to impose a sanction and for an award of an attorney’s fee before the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The motion was granted by the Supreme Court saying that plaintiff was already judicially estopped from arguing that certain provisions in the parties’ judgment of divorce and stipulation of settlement should be set aside. With this, plaintiff filed an appeal with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York.

After careful consideration of the facts of the case, the Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered that the order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County be modified.

Published on: September 12, 2013

Issue in this Case is Whether Court Erred in Granting Retroactive Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, in which the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in open court on December 16, 2009, A New York Family Lawyer said that, the plaintiff appeals from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 8, 2010, which awarded the defendant counsel fees in the sum of $15,000 and directed that he pay retroactive child support in the sum of $24,199.20 and arrears of his pro rata share of certain child care expenses in the sum of $1,666.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in granting the retroactive pay of child support.

The court in deciding the case said that, an award of counsel fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(a) is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the ‘issue is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case’. In determining whether to award counsel fees, the court should “review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties’ positions”. A counsel fee award generally will be warranted where there is a significant disparity in the financial circumstances of the parties. The court may also consider “whether either party has engaged in conduct or taken positions resulting in a delay of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation”.

Published on: August 23, 2011

Bill Attempting to Reform Child Custody Laws

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a prominent New York Family Lawyer there is a new bill proposed which could revamp the child custody laws? This will force judges to offer equal parenting time to parents unless one is said to be unfit for parenting.

The state is trying to make child custody laws much fairer. If both parents are loving and fit then they should both be involved. Two parents are needed to raise well rounded children.

There are a large number of supporters of this bill. It says that it would prevent many fathers from being nothing more than visitors to their child’s lives. Instead they will be able to be part of their life. This will also make the child’s life much more stable.

Published on: June 14, 2011

Same-sex Nebraska City couple denied divorce

by Stephen Bilkis

A Nebraska district court judge denied a divorce to a same-sex couple on Tuesday. The couple got married in 2003 when they lived in Vermont.

The judge said that according to Nebraska Constitution, Nebraska does not see them as a married couple, a New York Family Lawyer stated. According to the constitution, “only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska,” the judge said.

Nebraska does not see the marriage as validate and he cannot dissolve the union. Nebraska is not the only state that does not recognize same-sex marriages. Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Texas and Rhode Island also have similar constitution.