Divorce

Published on: May 17, 2012

Defendant Charged with Possession of Stolen Vehicle

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff/appellants in the case are Jose Gonzalez. The defendants and appellees of the case is the NICB (National Insurance Crime Bureau); Progressive Casualty Insurance Company.

Appeal

A New York Family Lawyer the plaintiff is appealing the original verdict of his case against the defendant in which he sued the defendants claiming they were liable for the way he was treated when he was unlawfully arrested in Mexico. He was arrested for attempting to sell a car in Mexico that was believed to be stolen. The original case was dismissed.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Court Rules on Common Law Marriage

by Stephen Bilkis

Whenever people attempt to defraud another, it is a criminal situation, however, when married people defraud each other, it is somehow worse. A New York Family Lawyer said in some cases that reach the Family Court, the lines that define right and wrong can become blurred. This is what happens when people attempt to circumvent any system for their own personal gain.

In 1935, a woman from Turkey and her husband ran a business in Atlanta, Georgia where they purchased oriental carpets from an Iraqi man who was born of Jewish parents. The relationship between the parties was amicable and provided a good working base for all involved. In 1941, the Iraqi man was returning to New York after a sales trip to meet with the couple in Atlanta when he had a bad traffic accident near Folkston, Georgia. Following the accident, the Iraqi man was taken to a hospital in Folkston and then transferred to Emory University Hospital for further treatment. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the Turkish woman spent many hours assisting the Iraqi man in his recovery. As a result of this close connection, the two developed a strong friendship. When he recovered, the man asked the woman if she was interested in running one of his Hotels in Miami Beach, Florida. She agreed and moved to Miami. In 1945, she divorced her husband and lived in a suite at the hotel that she managed for the Iraqi man.

They soon began a more intimate relationship. The man would visit her frequently at the hotel and was known to sometimes stay over with her at the hotel. In November of 1945, a few months following her divorce, the man bought a house in Miami Beach, Florida and told the woman to redecorate it in her own taste since it would be their marital home. The woman proceeded to redecorate and renovate the house to meet her qualifications for it. In December of 1945, the woman collected the man from the airport after he flew down from New York. They drove to the house where he told her that he loved only her and that he wanted her to be with him for life. She agreed and the following day, the went to the hotel and informed the staff that they had married.

Published on: May 15, 2012

Court Discusses Warrantless Search of Home

by Stephen Bilkis

The sanctity of the American home is considered one of the most vital of all rights in this free society. It is because of this attitude that search and seizure laws are constantly being revisited. The American jurisprudence system obtained the roots of its procedural law from the old English version of common law. A New York Family Lawyer said that one of the main issues of strife between the colonists and the English authorities was the invasion of colonist’s homes without a warrant. On the other side of the coin was that the authority to enter a home without a warrant was established as a means to ensure the health and peace of the citizenry at any time. It has been reviewed numerous times. Some people still contend that the ability to force entry into a person’s home for the purpose of arresting them without a warrant is legal under the common law approach from English law.

Most Americans believe that their homes are secure from invasion by the government as long as the government agent does not have probable cause to obtain a warrant. Prior to 1961, New York like most other states, conducted warrantless searches of a person’s home whenever they could show that they had probable cause to believe that the person lived at the residence. In 1961, Dolree Mapp was in her home when Ohio police officers arrived and demanded entry to search for her boyfriend. A New York Custody Lawyer said that Ms. Mapp demanded that they show her a warrant before she would let them in. The officers left, but returned shortly with a document that they claimed was a search warrant. Ms. Mapp snatched the paper and put it down the front of her dress. A police officer retrieved it and she was arrested for having indecent materials in a box in her cellar. She claimed that the indecent material was nude drawings from her art class. Ms. Mapp was convicted and appealed her conviction. Her Supreme Court case became a landmark case that created the requirement of search warrants at the state as well as the federal level. Prior to 1961, state officials could conduct a warrantless search to arrest a person whom they believed was guilty of a felony. Following Mapp v Ohio, warrants became required by state officials. This case changed many procedures.

It is surprising then that this argument is still being challenged. However, the sanctity of a person’s home should not be violated lightly. American’s hold the sanctity of home in high regard, that leaves the question of the constitutionality of warrantless arrests in the home unanswered. It is held as common knowledge that an officer may arrest a felon in a public place without the benefit of a warrant. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the warrantless arrest of a felon in the sanctity of their own homes is a different situation. As years progress, the requirements tighten to ensure that officers respect at all cost the sanctity of a person’s home. The arrest or seizure of a person in a public place, is less intrusive and should not be held to the same standard as an invasion of a citizen’s home. That being said, the history has been clear that no person need allow an official of the state to enter their homes without a warrant. There are exigent circumstances such as the endangerment of life that allow such intrusions. Exigent circumstances are those circumstances that are so time sensitive that a person could be seriously injured or killed if the time is taken to secure a warrant. A Queens Family Lawyer said that under exigent circumstances, an officer may enter a person’s home in order to prevent a greater wrong from being done.

Published on: May 14, 2012

Parent’s Visitation Rights Suspended

by Stephen Bilkis

A husband and wife had two children of their own and the wife had a child by a former partner. All of the children are minors. The ACS filed petitions in family court alleging that the eldest child, the wife’s child by another former partner was neglected. ACS alleged that the husband and wife inflicted excessive corporal punishment on the child resulting in bruises on the child. The mother beat the child using an extension cord while her husband punched the child.

A New York Family Lawyer said the ACS also filed a petition of derivative neglect upon the two younger children of the couple alleging that since these two minors witnessed the abuse of the eldest minor child, they were considered derivatively neglected as well.

After a hearing at the family court, A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the children were ordered removed from the home of their parents. The eldest child was placed with his great grandfather on the mother’s side, his nearest relative.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Court Decides Custody Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

A husband and wife separated in 1982. In their separation agreement, the former spouses agreed that the mother would have child custody and the father would have reasonable visitation rights upon 48 hours’ notice. A New York Family Lawyer said the mother also agreed that the mother would not remove the children more than 200 miles away from New York without their father’s consent. The separation agreement was entered into as a stipulated agreement of a custody petition filed by the father in the family court of New York. The father’s visitation rights were specified to be weekdays and weekend visitation on his days off from work up to a maximum of ten days per month.

A year later, the father applied to the family court to vacate the stipulated agreement because the mother had moved his children to California without his knowledge or consent. The father also moved for child custody be removed from his wife and to be given to him instead.

The mother opposed the motion stating that her husband agreed for her to move to California with their children. She also alleged that her husband who was a New York police officer often threatened her and her children with violence. She also alleged that the father did not frequently visit his children. A New York Custody Lawyer said he visited them for only ten days within a one year period. She also states that in California, she lives in the same house with her two brothers who help her take care of her children. Her parents also live nearby and see the children often.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Court Rules on Custody Battle

by Stephen Bilkis

Sometime in January 2004, the parties in the herein case got married. On 13 July 2006, about a year and a half later, the parties were separated and got divorced. They are the parents of a now six-year-old boy born on 17 May 2004. The stipulation settling the divorce case granted the mother legal and physical custody of the child. The father had visitation every week from Monday at 8:00 p.m. until Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. The stipulation allowed relocation within 25-miles of the father’s house in the Bronx.

A New York Family Lawyer said the father has had a history of irregular employment and is currently not employed. While at the time of trial, the mother, who is remarried, cared for her younger child from her second marriage, full time.

After the parties separated, the mother remained in the marital apartment in the Bronx with the child for two years. In the fall of 2007, she began working as a project administrator in the construction field. In 2007, she moved with the child and her boyfriend to Connecticut. The mother testified that she always wanted her son to be in a suburban environment. However, the relationship in Connecticut ended when the boyfriend returned to his native country, New Zealand. Hence, the mother then returned to New York with the child and moved into an apartment in Harlem.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Court Unravels Money Laundering Scheme

by Stephen Bilkis

Seven insurance companies are the plaintiffs in this case and they are appealing a decision that was made in favor of the defendant, Dreyfus Service Corporation granting a summary judgment dismissing the case. A New York Family Lawyer said that throughout the decade of the 90s, the insurance companies were looted by a fraud scheme that was perpetrated by Martin Frankel. The insurance companies (the receivers) in the original case at hand were seeking to impose civil RICO liability and tort on Dreyfus Service Corporation as they were the investment company that was used by Frankel to funnel money through the funds of the insurance companies.

The district court heard the case and reviewed the federal and New York laws in the manner granted a summary judgment that was in favor of the defendant for each claim made by the insurance companies. For the court came to the conclusion that there were 8 accounts where no duty came to the seven insurance companies and the receivers failed to exhibit causation for the other 5 accounts regarding the tort claims. The court decided that there was no way to find anyone at Dreyfus Service Corporation who deliberately ignored the money laundering activities of Frankel in regard to the RICO claim.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the plaintiffs are appealing this initial verdict of a summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Court Decides on Relocation of Child

by Stephen Bilkis

In the instant proceeding, the petitioner/father seeks to modify custody and enjoin the parties’ six and half year old child (“the child”) from relocating with the custodial parent, the respondent/mother to the Aramco compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

A New York Family Lawyer said the respondent opposes the petition to modify custody and requests permission to allow their child to permanently reside in Saudi Arabia with respondent, respondent’s husband or the child’s “Step-Father” and the child’s two half-siblings.

Is it in the child’s best interest to award petitioner custody and compel the child to remain in New York with petitioner or to maintain custody with respondent and allow the child to relocate to the Aramco compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia?

Published on: May 9, 2012

Appellant Contends Court Lacked Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

A lawsuit appeal arises out from a family court decision that the court has lacked authority in a custody modification proceeding after a mother fled with her five-year-old son to another country in the middle of the proceeding. A New York Family Lawyer said the court however reversed the said decision.

A complainant father is a United States citizen and his wife as an Italian national who is also a United States citizen and has one child, born in Italy and has dual citizenship.

Apparently, a decision of the divorce was entered in New York. The court finds that it had no authority over custody issues of the child because the boy had lived in New York for only 9 out of his 27 months since birth. As a result, there were no court orders in New York with regard to child custody, visitation or maintenance. Subsequent in filing of the proceedings, the mother filed same proceedings in Rome and the father was permitted to the court in Rome to enter orders for child custody and visitation.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Court Determines Custody Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

A former husband filed a petition to modify a divorce decree order made by another court and seeks a sole custody of his son. A decree of divorce was filed and was made by the Supreme Court. The basis of authority for the decree was a separation agreement entered into between the couple which had been adhered to by them for one year prior to the commencement of the proceeding. A New York Family Lawyer said the separation agreement entered into between the husband and his wife was filed in the county clerk’s office. The terms of the separation agreement were included but not merged in the decree of divorce.

The decree ordered that all matters arising in the future pertaining to the enforcement of the decree or to requested modifications of any provision whether pertaining to child support, visitation or child custody, be and the same are referred to a family court or to the appropriate court having authority to the issue. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the separation agreement indicates that the couple was married and lived in New York and the wife shall have custody of the children of the marriage. The husband’s visitation rights were outlined in some detail.

The issue came on for a proceeding and the father appeared by counsel but the mother failed to appear. The court was informed that the child who is the subject in the proceeding lives in Connecticut but runs away and is in New York with the father.