Articles Posted in Queens

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to review a determination of the appellant State Commissioner, dated March 14, 1975 and made after a fair hearing, which affirmed an order of the local agency denying petitioner’s application for public assistance on behalf of herself and her then unborn child, the appeal, as limited by appellant’s brief, is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 30, 1976, as (1) annulled that portion of the determination which denied petitioner’s application for public assistance on her own behalf and (2) ordered the County Commissioner to conduct further investigation to determine, on the basis of her income and financial resources, petitioner’s eligibility for assistance on her own behalf.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, petitioner was a married pregnant woman separated from her husband and living with her parents. On January 14, 1975 she applied to the Nassau County Department of Social Services for public assistance in the categories of aid to families with dependent children and medicaid, on behalf of herself and her then unborn child. Since petitioner’s application revealed that she was a minor living with her parents, the agency had her father fill out a medical assistance questionnaire. His answers revealed that his net income exceeded the amount set as the maximum qualifying level for a family of three persons.

A Nassau Child Support Lawyer said that, in the determination under review appellant affirmed the local agency’s denial of public assistance to petitioner. Special Term ruled in petitioner’s favor and found that since petitioner was emancipated, there was no requirement for her parents to support her or her unborn child.

A New York Family Lawyer said this is a matrimonial action wherein the parties were divorced by judgment entered 24 October 2008. The defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County dated 30 July 2009, as denied, without a hearing, those branches of his motion which were for a downward modification of his child support and maintenance obligations and, in effect, denied that branch of his motion which was to confer continuing jurisdiction over this action upon the Family Court concurrent with that of the Supreme Court.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the court orders to modify, on the law, by deleting the provision denying, without a hearing, those branches of the defendant’s motion which were for a downward modification of his child support and maintenance obligations. As so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing on those branches of the defendant’s motion which were for a downward modification of his child support and maintenance obligations and a new determination thereafter on those branches of the motion.

Based on Matter of Gravlin v Ruppert, Merl v Merl and Nelson v Nelson, the terms of a stipulation of settlement that is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce operate as contractual obligations binding on the parties. As was held in Merl v Merl, Matter of Boden v Boden and Nelson v Nelson, generally, child support provisions deriving from such an agreement may be modified upon a showing that the agreement was not fair and equitable when entered into, or upon a showing of an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances. Modification of maintenance obligations deriving from such an agreement generally requires a showing of extreme hardship based on Domestic Relations Law § 263[B][9][b] and as held in a similar case of Rockwell v Rockwell.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5-B to establish a support order, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, which denied her objection to an order of the same court, which, after a hearing, granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding and for an attorney’s fee in the sum of $3,000 to the respondent.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the petitioner is the sister of the father, acting on behalf of her then-14-year-old nephew, commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act to establish a support order against the child’s mother. When the child’s parents were divorced in 2001, the mother was awarded custody of both the child and his sister, and the father was directed to pay approximately $1,500 per month for child support. In 2003 the child refused to continue living with his mother and went to live with his father. During the same period, the father anticipated that he would be incarcerated and commenced a proceeding to modify the custody provisions of the divorce decree.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said on the return date of the father’s petition, the mother, father, and petitioner all appeared in court. As the mother recounted the events at a hearing held in connection with the instant petition, she had wanted the child to return to her home, but the child had been manipulated and turned against her by his father. She reluctantly agreed in the father’s modification proceeding to accept petitioner’s offer to have the child stay with petitioner at her home in Florida while the father was in prison, rather than have the child go to a foster home. Upon consent of both parents, the Family Court issued a modified custody order which provided, inter alia, that the mother and father would have joint legal custody of the child, and that after the end of the 2003/2004 school term, the child would reside with petitioner in Florida until further order of the court. At the court appearance on the father’s petition, there was no discussion of child support to the petitioner, as, according to the mother, “money was not an issue for her.”

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said this proceeding involves a natural father’s effort to gain child custody of his daughter born out of wedlock, from the respondent Nassau County Department of Social Services to whom the child has been entrusted since her birth pursuant to her natural parents’ consent. The child was born with a positive toxicology for cocaine and exhibiting withdrawal symptoms. Neglect proceedings were commenced against the natural mother based upon her admitted drug addiction. Although the petitioner was identified in the neglect petition as the infant’s father, he was not a named respondent. The natural mother eventually consented to a finding of neglect.

Meanwhile, a New York Custody Lawyer said only three days after he consented to the child’s temporary placement with the Department and five days after the child’s birth, the petitioner brought a proceeding for an order of filiation declaring him to be the child’s natural father and also sought child custody. After an order of filiation was entered, the petitioner commenced the instant proceeding for child custody of his daughter. Following a hearing at which the only witnesses were two caseworkers who were involved in the neglect proceedings initiated against the natural mother, the Family Court concluded that the father had failed to demonstrate that he would be a proper custodian for the infant and the child would be at risk in the petitioner’s custody. The court’s determination appeared premised primarily upon the father’s admission to the caseworkers that until several months prior to the child’s birth he was an occasional recreational user of cocaine and further upon the testimony of one of the caseworkers that the petitioner’s home was in need of repairs. Notably, the court’s decision was contrary to the recommendation of the Law Guardian appointed by the court to represent the child’s interest. This appeal ensued.

A Queens Family Lawyer said the critical issue presented is whether a sufficient demonstration of extraordinary circumstances has been made to justify an inquiry into the child’s best interests. In denying the petitioner father’s application for child custody, the Family Court erroneously placed the burden upon him to demonstrate his fitness as a parent. The principles governing child custody disputes between a natural parent and a third person are firmly established in the decisional law. A natural parent has a claim to the custody of his or her child superior to that of all others, unless he or she has abandoned that right or is proved unfit to assume the duties and privileges of parenthood.

Continue reading

This is a Custody action was commenced originally Sheriffs, all of whom are responsible for the operation of jails and local correctional facilities within their respective counties. Six additional Sheriffs were later joined as petitioners.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the genesis of the dispute is the recognized problem of overcrowding in the prison system of this State. Generally, where a defendant in a criminal action is incarcerated prior to conviction and sentencing, the individual is confined at the local correctional facility of the county in which the action is pending. After sentencing, the defendant is committed to the custody of the Department and is ultimately assigned to a State correctional facility.

After sentencing, there is some delay while certain paperwork is processed before the prisoner is “State-ready”. Because of cost and lack of space, the County Sheriffs want the Department to accept prisoners as soon as they become State-ready. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Commission has promulgated regulations, which apply to both county and State facilities, establishing maximum capacity. In some circumstances, County Sheriffs, faced with a delay by the Department in accepting State-ready prisoners and maximum capacity in their correctional facilities, are forced to house prisoners in other counties’ facilities at a great cost to the county. Finally, the Sheriffs contend that the Division of Parole unreasonably delays the processing of alleged parole violators, who remain in county facilities until their parole is formally revoked and they, thus, become State-ready.

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said in this Family case, in related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County, as, without a hearing, awarded custody of the parties’ children to the father.

According to a New York Child Custody Lawyer, the Family Court entered a finding of child neglect against the mother pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act upon the mother’s admission, at a fact-finding hearing, to allegations that she tested positive for marijuana, obtained Xanax from a neighbor, and used both Xanax and marijuana on a regular basis. Additionally, the Family Court, conducted a dispositional hearing, and was concluded thereafter.

At that hearing, evidence was adduced that supported a finding of the mother’s continued drug use, and additional evidence demonstrated the mother’s history of mental health issues, inappropriate conduct during visitation, and inappropriate conduct in making, or having her daughter make, false allegations against the father.

Continue reading

This proceeding was brought by the petitioner under subdivision 1 of section 332 of the Election Law to cancel the enrollment of the respondent as a member of the Democratic party of the county of Kings.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the petition alleges that respondent in a verified affidavit, requested that his enrollment be transferred from the thirty-seventh Election District of the nineteenth Assembly District to the fortieth Election District of the nineteenth Assembly District.

The respondent by lease became the tenant of premises in Kings County for a term of four years, which term has since expired, but the occupancy thereof has continued under the terms of the lease either by automatic renewals of terms of one year or under the emergency rent laws. The family of the respondent apparently at all times since the tenancy began of said premises has remained in occupancy thereof to the present time. It is indicated by the evidence that such family consists of the wife of the respondent and an unmarried son. The respondent is a lawyer engaged in practice in Kings County and, judging from the photograph introduced in evidence of the premises, it would appear that he either enjoys a good practice or is a man of some substance.

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said a fifteen-year old boy has petitioned the Supreme Court to prohibit the judges of the Family Court from reopening a fact-finding hearing by which he may be adjudged a juvenile delinquent, on the grounds that he will thereby be subjected to double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and contrary to the New York State Constitution.

The petitioner contends that he had already been exposed to jeopardy of his liberty in the Family Court when a witness was sworn and testified against him in an adjudicatory hearing, based upon a petition which charged him with criminal assault. In the midst of that proceeding the court declared a mistrial, over the objections of the law guardian for the petitioner. In fact, the presiding judge ordered the mistrial, Sua sponte, and for his own convenience. The judge remarked as he did so that he is disqualifying himself and declaring a mistrial.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the next day, the presiding judge, on his own initiative, recalled the case and abrogated the mistrial order for the purpose of reinstating the adjudicatory hearing against the accused. The law guardian again objected and raised the constitutional issue of double jeopardy as a bar.

A New York Lawyer said in related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court without a hearing, dismissed her petition to modify an order of visitation and an order of the same court, which, without a hearing, dismissed her petition to hold the father in contempt for his willful violation of an order of the same court.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the order dismissing the petition to modify the order of visitation is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, that petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court for a hearing to determine whether a modification of the visitation schedule is in the best interests of the child. The order dismissing the petition to hold the father in contempt is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court improperly dismissed the mother’s petition to modify the order of visitation. Modification of an existing custody or visitation arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child. Here, the mother met that burden, as the modification of visitation petition alleged that in the past year the father had missed 40-50% of his visits with the subject child. Therefore, the court reversed the order dismissing the petition to modify the order of visitation, reinstate that petition, and remit the matter to the Family Court for a hearing to determine whether a modification of the visitation schedule is in the best interests of the child.

Continue reading