Divorce

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Discusses Organized Crime Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellee in the case is the USA. The defendants and appellants of the case are Julio Acuna (Chino), Jose Miguel Battle, Jr. (Miguelito) a.k.a. Jose Miguel Battle Rodriguez, a.k.a. Jose R. Battle, a.k.a. Mike Battle, a.k.a. Mike Jr., a.k.a. Mike Battle, a.k.a. Jose Rodriguez Battle.

Appeal Case

The co-defendants of the case, Jose Battle, Jr. and Julio Acuna are appealing the conviction and sentences that they received, for various reasons. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendants are contending that in district court a number of errors in their case were made, which include: (a) denial of the motion for dismissal of the indictment of Battle for the because it was barred by the limitations statute; (b) response of a jury question to the defense of Battle that directed the jury to assess the instructions and reformulated the question; (c) departure before Battle’s sentence was given; (d) imposing sentences that were not reasonable on both defendants; and (e) entering a order of forfeiture to Battle that was disproportionate to the crime committed.

Published on: April 24, 2012

Court Looks to Will to Determine Burial Plan

by Stephen Bilkis

Cressie Carlyle and Ivan Cohen are the appellants in this case and the appellee of the case is the Guardianship of Hilliard Cohen.

The Appeal

The siblings of the departed, Hilliard Cohen are appealing an order from probate court that requires the deceased to be buried in a Florida graveyard next to his spouse of 40 years instead of being buried in the family plot in a cemetery located in New York.

Published on: April 21, 2012

Court Decides Custody Where One Parent Lives Abroad

by Stephen Bilkis

A father moved for an order modifying the provisions of the parties’ decision of divorce to which granting him full legal and residential child custody of the child of the marriage, an order appointing a law guardian to represent the interests of their child and directing that the residence of their child remain within the state. A New York Family Lawyer said the order to show reason granted a temporary restraining order providing that the child shall remain in the state and shall not be removed from the jurisdiction during the pending proceeding.

Consequently, the mother moved for an order directing the father to immediately return the child to her, as the custodial parent.

The couple got married in Brooklyn and the mother delivered her baby in Norway. The mother had returned to Norway to avail herself of health insurance coverage and to be near to her family. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the child and mother returned to Brooklyn soon after the child’s birth and resided in New York throughout their marriage.

Published on: April 19, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction Issue Regarding Divorce Proceedings

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and a woman married in New York and a daughter was born. The wife claims that they moved to Israel in 1987, with the intention of living there permanently. Although they purchased an apartment in Israel, the husband claims that he had no intention of permanently relocating there and had applied for permanent residency in that country only to obtain government benefits for his wife and daughter. It appears that the husband returned to New York in 1987 and has lived here ever since. A New York Family Lawyer said he is an Israeli citizen and their daughter who is a citizen of both the United States and Israel, have remained in Israel and continue to reside there.

In September of 1989, during religious divorce proceedings initiated by the husband, the Rabbinical Court of Israel, which has jurisdiction over matrimonial matters, awarded the child custody of the daughter to the wife and prohibited removal of the child from Israel without the permission of the Rabbinical Court. On December 12, 1989, the Rabbinical Court ordered the husband to pay his wife a guarantee for alimony and child support payments. A New York Custody Lawyer said the husband did not follow through with the religious divorce at that time.

The husband obtained a default judgment in court, awarding him a judgment of divorce upon the ground of abandonment. The divorce decree awarded joint child custody of the daughter and directed the husband to continue paying monthly child support. The parties were also ordered to sell the apartment in Israel and to split the proceeds, when either the daughter reaches emancipation or the wife remarries. It appears from the Judgment of Divorce that the court was not made aware of the prior proceedings in Israel.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Court Determines if they Have Proper Jurisdiction in Family Law Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the mother, respondent, and the father were married in 1980, which marriage was dissolved by a Florida Judgment of Divorce in 1986. At the time of the divorce, the mother was awarded primary custody of her three children. In 1988 an acquaintance of the mother entered her Florida home and abducted, raped and brutally attacked the two daughters, killing one of them and seriously injuring another. The father petitioned the Florida Court for a change of physical custody, which was granted in an Order and Judgment dated 7 June 1989. That order, inter alia, granted the mother liberal contact and access with the children including an extended summer and Christmas visitation. The father was also required to facilitate continued counseling for the children in Rochester which he failed to do. Counseling for one of the children was discontinued in 1992 and the other child in 1993 upon the father’s contention that it was no longer needed.

The children visited with the mother in Florida during summers of 1990, 1991, and 1993, and for the three Christmas holidays in those years, while residing the remainder of the year with the father in Monroe County, New York. Summer visitation did not occur during the summer of 1994, as the parties agreed to postpone visitation so one of the children could participate in a softball clinic. The mother drove to Monroe County to visit with the children during Christmas 1994, after the father refused to send them to Florida pursuant to their prior agreement. No visit occurred during the summer of 1995. Despite the attempts of the mother and her attorney to arrange a Christmas, 1995 visit, the father refused to allow the mother to speak with the children when she telephoned and refused to permit that visit to occur.

Subsequently, on 18 December 1995, the mother filed a Motion for Contempt against the father in the state of Florida. On 28 May 1996, the father was found in willful contempt of the Florida order. Counseling with the mother and the children was ordered by the Florida Court, as well as visitation during the summer of 1996.

Published on: April 17, 2012

Court Lacks Jurisiction to Modify Custody

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Custody Lawyer said that on 26 June 1983, the parties married in Rhode Island, later moved to that state, where a son was born on 13 August 1990. On 1 July 1994, the parties were divorced in Rhode Island after a contested trial in that state’s Family Court, which awarded the parties joint custody of the child with physical custody awarded to the mother, who was given responsibility for all decisions concerning the child’s education and religious upbringing. All other decisions concerning the child were to be jointly decided by the parties. The court awarded extensive visitation to the father, an attorney, who was directed to pay child support of $1,500 per month. In pertinent part, the judgment of divorce states: “The State of Rhode Island shall retain jurisdiction and is declared to be the home state as to any decisions concerning custody and visitation in accordance with the provisions of the Rhode Island Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.”

From his birth until the fall of 1994, the child resided in Providence, Rhode Island. After the parties’ separation in 1992, the child had frequent and extensive contact with his father during the week and on alternate weekends. On 10 November 1994, after a hearing, the Rhode Island Family Court entered an order permitting the mother to relocate to New York on condition that the father have extensive visitation in Rhode Island, including, inter alia, three weekends every month. The order required the mother to deliver the child and pick him up from Providence on two weekends and New Haven, Connecticut on the other weekend and to bear the cost thereof. A New York Family Lawyer said the order further provided, “The State of Rhode Island shall retain jurisdiction and is declared to be the home state as to any decision concerning custody, visitation and child support, and shall be in accordance with provisions of the Rhode Island Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, as amended 15-14-1 through 26.” The parties substantially adhered to these provisions from November 1994 to the present.

On 12 September 2003, the mother commenced the instant proceeding in Supreme Court, New York County for an order “a) modifying the extraordinary visitation schedule entered almost nine years ago; and b) modifying and enforcing the child support provisions established pursuant to the parties’ divorce over nine years ago.”

Published on: April 16, 2012

queens family

by Stephen Bilkis

The applicant of the case is Theodore Payton versus New York, Obie Riddick, and Applicant versus New York.

Appeals

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appeals for this case are arguing whether or not the statutes of New York State law in regard to entry of a person’s home without a warrant are constitutional.

Published on: April 15, 2012

Physician Accused of Performing Illegal Abortions

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant of the case is the United States of America. The appellee in the case is Milan Vuitch.

Appeal

Milan Vuitch, the appellee is a licensed physician and was indicted by the District Court in the District of Columbia for the United States District Court. Milan Vuitch was accused of attempting to produce and producing abortions that were in violation of the District of Columbia code Ann 22-201, from the year 1967. A New York Family Lawyer said before the case went to trial the district judge of the case ruled in favor of the defendant and granted a motion to dismiss the case on the bases that the abortion laws in the District of Columbia are to vague. It is this motion for dismissal that is being appealed.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Court Decides if Child Support Obligations can be Waived

by Stephen Bilkis

Anna O’Connor is the respondent and James G. Curcio is the appellant in this case.

The father is appealing to recover child support payments.

The issue became whether or not child support payments that are due can be waived because of an order of judgment. As long as the obligation to make those payments hasn’t occurred, they can be waived.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Court Decides if Parent of Emancipated Child Should Receive Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Thomas B. is the respondent and Lydia D. is the appellant.

History

Two parents tried to come to a written agreement where child support payments would be terminated because the child being supported had obtained a full time job. However, economic independence of a child is not enough reason to discontinue required child support payments.