Bronx

Published on: August 30, 2014

Petitioner Moves for Discontinuation of Child Support for Eighteen Year Old Child

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said sometime in October of 1968, a separation agreement was entered into by the parties (husband and wife), the terms of which were subsequently incorporated into a divorce decree granted and entered in Mexico. The agreement gave the mother, the respondent, custody of the children of the marriage and ordered the petitioner to provide support for their son, S, in the amount of $30 per week with visitation rights. Thereafter, on petitioner’s motion to compel visitation, the court by order entered 15 February 1977 granted petitioner specific revised rights of visitation with S.

Since the date of entry of the order of 15 February 1977, petitioner alleges that: he has been permitted to visit S only five times and has not been permitted to see him at all for the past five years; on his last attempt to see S, respondent’s husband told him S did not want to see him and ordered him to leave; in 1979, he discovered that S ceased using his surname, he had taken that of his stepfather and he has been known by that name since 1976.

A New York Divorce Lawyer said that subsequently, petitioner moves pursuant to § 241 of the Domestic Relations Law for the suspension of the provision in the judgment of divorce for the support of the parties’ eighteen year-old son.

Published on: August 10, 2014

Court Decides if Support Payments Should be Terminated

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife had previously been granted a divorce, the defendant husband appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 25, 1981, which granted plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of a receiver of all defendant’s property in the State of New York, “particularly all of his right, title and interest in and to the former marital residence”, named plaintiff as the receiver, awarded plaintiff a counsel fee of $750, and denied defendant’s cross motion to, inter alia, suspend prospective payments of alimony and child support, on the ground that plaintiff unreasonably withheld visitation, and (2) from a further order of the same court, dated October 22, 1981, which denied his motion to renew.

A New York Divorce Lawyer said in a stipulation settling their differences, which was incorporated but not merged in the judgment of divorce, the parties agreed, inter alia, that plaintiff would have exclusive possession of the marital residence, owned by them as tenants by the entirety. However, plaintiff was given the right to elect to sell the marital residence. The defendant further agreed to pay plaintiff $50 per week alimony and a total of $100 per week child support. The stipulation also provided: “Each party shall own free of any claim or right of the other all of the items of property, real, personal and mixed, of any kind, nature or description, and wheresoever’s situated, which are now owned by him or her”.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, in January, 1981, defendant petitioned the Family Court, Nassau County, for an order suspending his child support obligations on the ground that plaintiff had unreasonably denied him visitation with the children. By order dated January 28, 1981, his application was denied. A Nassau Visitation Lawyer said that, in June, 1981, defendant made a second application in the Family Court, Nassau County, for suspension of alimony and/or maintenance, on the ground, inter alia, that he was unreasonably denied visitation. By order dated July 17, 1981, his application was, again, denied and a judgment for arrears was entered against him.

Published on: August 2, 2014

Court Discusses Interim Custody Agreement

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the couple purchased their marital residence in 1999 and thereafter rented portions of the home to residential tenants while occupying its main floor. In February 2002 the wife commenced an action for a divorce and ancillary relief. In a pendente lite (pending in court) order, the Supreme Court awarded the defendant husband interim custody of their children and exclusive occupancy of the home, and directed him to pay the wife maintenance in the amount of $125 per week. Additionally, pursuant to that order, the husband was responsible for all the carrying charges on the home in light of his exclusive occupancy and his receipt of rental income from the home. As subsequently amended, the pendente lite order directed the wife to pay the husband $75 per week in child support but allowed her to credit her child support obligation against any unpaid maintenance. No child support or maintenance payments were made pursuant to the pendente lite order.

A New York Divorce Lawyer said that after a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court awarded physical custody of the children to the wife, directed the husband to pay the wife child support in the amount of $1,112 per month after imputing annual income to him in the amount of $50,000, denied the wife’s application for equitable distribution of fire insurance proceeds received for damages to the home and of rental income from the home generated during a 40-month period of time during which the husband had exclusive possession, and distributed the Haitian real property owned by the parties in kind.

However, a Bronx Family Lawyer said the Supreme Court erred in calculating the husband’s child support obligation based on an imputed annual income of $50,000 per year. That imputation was based upon findings that the husband’s average annual reported income over the years 2000-2003 was $37,264 and that, in addition, he received $2,000 per month in rental income. Those findings alone demonstrate that the husband’s actual income exceeds $60,000 per year. Moreover, at one point during the trial, the husband testified that he actually received rental income in the amount of $2,200 per month and, in addition, earned a couple thousand dollars per year in unreported income from secondary employment.

Published on: July 27, 2014

Petitioner Seeks to Modify Child Support Order

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said this is an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County, entered May 8, 1986, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 3A, for an order directing respondent to pay for child support of his child. A Nassau Child Support Lawyer said that, petitioner and respondent were married in 1950 and divorced in 1980. Pursuant to a separation agreement entered into in 1977, respondent agreed to pay $150 per week to petitioner and their two unemancipated children as child support, such sum to be reduced by $25 as each child became emancipated. It is clear that respondent has failed to comply with this provision of the separation agreement, as petitioner was awarded a money judgment in Supreme Court in 1983 for support arrears.

A Nassau Family Lawyer said that, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 3A in 1984 in Nassau County Family Court. The petition and petitioner’s testimony were certified and transmitted to Ulster County Family Court, where respondent resided. Following a hearing in Ulster County Family Court and petitioner’s appearance in Nassau County Family Court to answer questions concerning her finances, Ulster County Family Court ordered respondent to pay petitioner $90.50 per week for the support of the remaining dependent child and $20 per week in support arrearages. It is from this order that respondent appeals.

A New York Divorce Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether the Ulster County Family Court erred in ordering respondent to pay petitioner $90.50 per week for the support of the remaining dependent child and $20 per week in support arrearages.

Published on: June 7, 2014

Wife Files a Motion for Upward Modification of Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in a condition of settlement incorporated but not merged into the decision of divorce, a couple agreed to waive their right to fix the support of their child under the standards act for some period, during which time the father, a licensed urologist who was attending law school, would make no payments to the mother for the support of their child. The condition further stated that the husband agrees to pay the wife the support of the child pursuant to the act based upon his earnings at the time. Subsequently, in an order, the father was directed to pay the child support to the mother in the amount of eight hundred eighteen dollars, twice per month, which was based upon the father’s salary that was one hundred twenty five thousand dollars per year as a first year associate in a law firm.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the mother then initiated a proceeding for an upward modification, alleging that the father was now employed as an urologist earning approximately three hundred fifty thousand dollars per year. But, upon dismissal of the proceeding on the ground that the mother failed to state a reason for action for modification, the mother filed objections to the family court, but some of which were denied.

Subsequently, the mother filed an appeal from an order of the family court which denied her objections to so much of three orders of the same court, as denied her cross motion to limit the issues with regard’s the father’s income, granted the branch of the father’s motion which was to dismiss the proceeding for failure to state a reason for action, and dismissed the proceeding.

Published on: June 5, 2014

Court Hears Paternity Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said complainants initiated a paternity proceeding against a man. An infant had been born and after a denial by the man, preparation for a contested proceeding followed. However, both parties with their attorneys resolved the matter and executed a written agreement.

A New York Custody Lawyer said in the main agreement, the man admitted paternity and committed himself to pay $3,500 for the complainant’s counsel fees and blood test expenses. The man also committed to pay the sum of $216.67 per month and to establish a trust fund for the child in the amount of $20,000.

Under the terms of the trust agreement, the interest from the amount was to be used by man to subsidize the monthly child support payments with the amount to be given over to the child when he attained twenty one years or, if the child did not survive, to revert to the man. But, if the man died during the child’s infancy, the complainant mother herself would succeed as trustee.

Published on: April 14, 2014

Wife Contends Husbands Suit Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife was granted a divorce, she appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, as denied her cross motion, inter alia, to “dismiss” defendant’s motion for custody of the infant issue of the marriage upon the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the parties, who had resided with their two minor children in Nassau County, were divorced by a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The judgment incorporated an earlier separation agreement, which was to survive the judgment. The agreement provided, inter alia, that plaintiff would have “principal custody” of the two children and defendant would have certain visitation rights. The agreement also provided that each party could live wherever he or she chose.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that defendant moved for custody of the children and other relief at Special Term early in 1979, alleging that plaintiff had interfered with his visitation rights. The court found that plaintiff had interfered with defendant’s rights by removing the children to California and Florida and that she had decided, without consulting defendant, to move to California permanently with the children.

Published on: March 28, 2014

Court Decides Two Cases Involving Family Court Act 651 (b)

by Stephen Bilkis

Pursuant to the Family Court Act § 651(b) and Domestic Relations Law § 72, two petitions are now before the court.

A New York Family Lawyer said the first petition filed on 5 December 2008 by A (birth father) seeks custody of and/or visitation with the child B (D.O.B. 04/01/2004).

The second petition filed on 5 December 2008 by C, mother of B, seeks custody of and/or visitation with the child, C.

Published on: January 10, 2014

Court Decides if it Erred in Child Support Determination

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, petitioner objects to the order which terminated the order of child support of December 12, 1988. The objections are sustained and the order terminating the December 12, 1988 order of child support is vacated and the order of child support is continued. The child was born out-of-wedlock on September 17, 1987 and shortly thereafter began to receive support from the petitioner/Commissioner of Social Services. On October 13, 1988, the Commissioner commenced a proceeding to declare the respondent the child’s father and to collect child support from him. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the third paragraph of the Commissioner’s petition alleges that she had received an assignment from the child’s mother and that the child is or is likely to become a public charge. The petition prayed for child support.

A New York Bronx Lawyer said that, on September 12, 1988 Hearing Examiner entered both an order of filiation and an order of child support, both on the father’s consent. On February 28, 1990, a child protective proceeding pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court Act was commenced against the child’s mother resulting in the May 29, 1990 order placing the child in foster care. It would appear that the father was neither a respondent nor an intervenor in that proceeding.

A Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that, on February 28, 1991 the father moved to terminate his order of child support effective May 29, 1990 and for a refund of all child support paid to the Commissioner from that date. The essence of the father’s argument in support of his motion is that since the Commissioner was acting, at least in part, as the assignor of the custodial mother when the original order of support was entered, it should be vacated because the Commissioner now has custody of the child. There is no dispute that the Commissioner has continued to support the child during the entire time in issue.

Published on: November 1, 2013

Court Decides Whether a Writ of Habeas Corpus Confers to Subject Matter Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties were married in California thereafter they resided together in Orange County, New York. A New York Family Lawyer said the respondent wife moved out of the marital residence. She was approximately seven months pregnant at the time. She filed a family offense petition in Orange County Family Court and was granted an ex parte Temporary Order of Protection against her petitioner husband. Through her attorney, she notified the Family Court that she was withdrawing the family offense petition which had not as yet been served upon her husband, and that she was leaving for the holidays with her family. That same day, she left New York and returned to her parents’ home in Alexandria Minnesota. She wrote to her husband she would be back with her parents. She did not return home to the marital residence after the holidays as she had previously indicated. The husband thereupon commenced an action for divorce by filing a Summons with Notice.

The infant child was born in Alexandria, Minnesota. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the instant Writ of Habeas Corpus was issued by the court and was made returnable. The writ was adjourned on consent to February 17th, on which date both the counsel and the complainant husband appeared and oral argument was held. The court waived the appearance of the infant who was only several days old when the writ was issued, and had developed some health issues. In the meanwhile, the respondent wife filed a petition in District Court of Douglas County, Minnesota for legal and physical child custody, child support, and to schedule parenting time for the husband.

The issue of whether a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus confers to the subject matter jurisdiction upon the Court to adjudicate the parties’ child custody dispute when the child is outside the State of New York when the petition was filed. A Bronx Family Lawyer said it is also an issue whether New York or Minnesota is the home state assuming the court does have subject matter jurisdiction.