Suffolk County

Published on: March 25, 2015

Court Decides Custody in Light of Sexual Abuse Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

Following an 11-day hearing, Family Court, by order entered September 15, 2005, awarded respondent wife sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor child, D (born in 2000), and established a visitation schedule for petitioner. Family Court did so with great hesitation, noting respondent’s marked weaknesses as a parent, including her insistence that petitioner sexually abused the child—despite the lack of sufficient credible evidence to sustain that allegation—and her noted lack of effort to encourage any sort of a relationship between the child and petitioner.

Shortly thereafter, respondent failed to produce the child for a scheduled visitation with petitioner in Nassau County, prompting Family Court to order the parties to appear on September 28, 2005 to address this issue. At that time, it came to light that respondent recently had informed the child’s school psychologist that petitioner had sexually abused the child; the school psychologist, in turn, filed a report with the Nassau County Department of Social Services. Respondent conceded that she did not advise the school psychologist of the prior proceedings in Family Court or that the allegations of abuse had been thoroughly explored and laid to rest in the course thereof. Family Court then directed that neither party discuss the prior allegations of sexual abuse with anyone without the express permission of the court.

Published on: March 24, 2015

Court Discusses Application of Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1971, a mildly retarded individual was admitted to the Wassaic Developmental Center, a State institution for the mentally retarded. At the time of her admission, she was 16 years of age, and had a known history of epileptic seizures which rendered her immobile for minutes at a time. Her medication, Dilantin, kept her epileptic condition under control although she did continue to experience some seizures following her admission. In 1974, the child was placed in a family-care home. At the time of the placement, 6the foster mother was informed by social workers that the child was an epileptic, but was never given any records regarding her condition. The foster mother was told that the child was to take her medication three times a day. Between the years 1974 and 1978, the child suffered periodic seizures while under the foster parents’ supervision.

The foster’s residence had been certified by the State as a family-care home following an inspection in or about 1975. A recertification was made in 1977. During the certification inspections, as well as intermittent other inspections, no hazardous conditions were found to exist in the home. The second-floor bathroom, where the underlying incident occurred, was outfitted with a bathtub, commode, sink and closet. The bathtub, which was enclosed by sliding glass doors, was equipped with a showerhead and faucet with one control for the hot and cold water. The door to the bathroom was a solid, standard, wood type with a butterfly lock below the handle on the inside of the bathroom. There was no turning device for the lock on the outside of the door. The foster’s were never directed to remove or change the lock on the bathroom door.

Published on: March 21, 2015

Family Court Deals with Firearm Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

At the hearing, the Deputy Sheriff testified on behalf of the Sheriff’s Department. He testified that the Sheriff’s Department’s general rule in returning firearms is that the return is made when an order from the court is provided to the Sheriff’s Department. According to him, in the past six years that he worked with the department, there were only two orders given by the Supreme Court for the return of firearms, the remainder were considered by the Family Court.

The former wife of the petitioner chose not to appear, although the Law Guardian had spoken to her, and she indicated that she had no objection to the return of the firearms provided they were safely stored. As previously stated, she had also consented to the vacating of the Order of Protection. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court reserved decision pending a background check of the petitioner to ensure that there was no activity or history that would preclude the return of the firearms.

Published on: March 18, 2015

Court Discusses Petition for Tax Exemption

by Stephen Bilkis

The Plaintiff, claims that it is entitled to a real property tax exemption pursuant to Real Property Tax Law [“R.P.T.L.”] §§ 420(a),(b)1 and 4622 for the years 2004 and 2005 for its property located at 32 College Road, Monsey, New York within the Town of Ramapo. The trial of this matter took place on February 15, 2006 during which witnesses testified on behalf of the Congregation and the Defendants. After a careful review the trial record and exhibits and the excellent post trial memoranda of law including findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the parties the Court is now prepared to render its Decision.

The Congregation was organized as a religious corporation, the Certificate of Incorporation5 of which provides” SECOND: The purposes for which this corporation is formed are. To conduct and maintain a House of Worship in accordance with orthodox Jewish custom and traditions to promote the religious, intellectual, moral and social welfare among its members and their families, to promote and increase interest in the study of the Torah, by maintaining classes for the teaching of the customs, traditions and mode of worship of the orthodox Jewish faith. FIFTH: The principal place of worship of the corporation shall be located at 32 College Road, Monsey, New York”.

Published on: March 6, 2015

Court Discusses Grand Jury Investigation Into the Sale of Children

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 7, 1976, a New York County Grand Jury, pursuant to its investigation into the sale of babies in violation of Social Services Law, Section 374(6), 1 issued two subpoenas duces tecum. One subpoena directed the Clerk of the Family Court of Suffolk County to appear before the Grand Jury and to produce adoption records from January 1, 1973 to November 1, 1976, wherein the parties to the adoption were represented by certain designated attorneys. The other subpoena, issued to the Clerk of the Nassau County Surrogate’s Court, requested production of similar material. The Clerk of the Suffolk County Family Court and the Senior Deputy County Attorney of Nassau County moved to vacate the subpoenas asserting that compliance would violate Domestic Relations Law § 114. That statute which provides for sealing of adoption records states, inter alia: “No person shall be allowed access to such sealed records and order and any index thereof except upon an order of a judge or surrogate of the court in which the order was made or of a justice of the Supreme Court. No order for disclosure or access and inspection shall be granted except on good cause shown and on due notice to the adoptive parents and to such additional persons as the court may direct.” In opposing the motions to quash, an assistant district attorney affirmed that “Information in the possession of my office shows that certain New York County attorneys maintain a nationwide network to locate and support unwed, pregnant young women. Thereafter these young women are induced to give up their babies to families that the lawyers have previously agreed to supply with infants.” A demonstration of specific instances of the illegal placement of children for adoption was set forth.

The initial and critical issue is whether the Grand Jury is a “person” within contemplation of Domestic Relations Law § 114. The purpose of Section 114 is to withhold adoption records from public inspection. In an adoption proceeding, the most intimate details of the lives of all parties thereto must be scrutinized in order for the court to determine whether the adoption will promote the best interests of the adoptive child. While records of judicial proceedings are generally available for public inspection, the unique nature of an adoption proceeding necessitates that such records be withheld from the public in order to protect the privacy of all parties involved. The statute, by providing that no person shall have access to these records without a showing of good cause and notice to the adoptive parents, is designed to prevent members of the public from unjustifiably delving into the privacy of those involved in adoptions.

Published on: February 10, 2015

Petitioner Challenges Three Rulings from Dept. of Social Services

by Stephen Bilkis

In this Article 78 family proceeding, Petitioners challenge three determinations of the Nassau County Department of Social Services.

On the first issue, the emergency assistance was denied to replace clothing of the petitioners’ four children, which was destroyed by parasitic pinworms.

Published on: October 23, 2014

Father Moves for Custody in Light of Mentally Ill Mother

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said this is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court entered 28 April 2009 in Ulster County, which, among other things, awarded plaintiff custody of the parties’ child.

The father, plaintiff and the mother, defendant were married in 2004 and are the parents of a daughter born in 2005. Within weeks of her birth, the couple began experiencing marital difficulties, stemming from the father’s growing concern about the mother’s mental health.

In January 2006, when the child was just five weeks old, the mother vacated the couple’s marital residence in Ulster County and traveled to Nassau County with the child. The father immediately initiated a proceeding in Ulster County Family Court requesting joint custody of the child and an order prohibiting the mother from removing the child from the child. Family Court issued an interim order restricting the mother from leaving the state with the child and set a prompt return date.

Published on: October 13, 2014

Husband Claims Aandonment and Adultery in Divorce Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties were spouses who have two children of the marriage. From the date of the parties’ marriage until August 2002, the parties and their two children resided in Eastchester, in Westchester County with the wife’s mother in a residence owned by the wife’s mother. According to the wife, the husband abandoned her in that year. Thereafter the husband resided for some period of time in Nassau County with a woman with whom he has an out-of-wedlock child. The wife and the parties’ children moved to Dobbs Ferry New York. The husband resided with the wife and children in the Dobbs Ferry residence for a two and a half week period in April and May 2008. The husband’s 2009 driver’s license states his address is the wife’s Dobbs Ferry residence.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the husband commenced a prior action for divorce in Nassau County. Pursuant to an order, venue of said action was transferred to Westchester County. Thereafter, the husband also commenced another action for divorce against the wife in Westchester County. Both actions were dismissed. The wife has served an answer in the above captioned action seeking dismissal of the within action. She has not interposed a counterclaim for divorce.

The husband became a month-to-month tenant of an apartment in a private residence in Massapequa. His rent is $900.00 a month. Thereafter, he commenced the within action for divorce in Nassau County. His complaint asserts three causes of action, to wit: actual abandonment; social abandonment; and adultery. All the causes of action allegedly occurred in Dobbs Ferry in Westchester County.

Published on: September 29, 2014

Grandmother Seeks Visitation Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said a grandmother seeks to obtain visitation privileges with her grandson. The child was born and resided with the complainant, his maternal grandmother, for five years. The child’s father is in prison, and his mother, who was addicted to drugs, already died.

Previously, a dispute arose between the complainant, as maternal grandmother, and the paternal grandmother, concerning custody of the child. However, the Supreme Court gave the child custody to his paternal aunt and granted both the maternal and paternal grandparents for limited visitation rights.

The paternal aunt subsequently initiated an adoption proceeding in the family court. As a result, they became the adoptive parents of the child.

Published on: September 17, 2014

Petitioner Brings Motion to Consolidate Two Separate Divorce Actions

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that on 20 September 1969, petitioner and respondent were married in Cooperstown, New York. After residing in a trailer park in Sodus, New York, they bought a house and settled in Williamson, New York. Out of the marriage, four children were born- A and B, twins who are aged three, C, aged two, and D, aged one. On or about 20 May 1974, the parties separated and respondent left the marital residence with the children, and since then has been living with her mother in Fly Creek, New York.

On 19 June 1974, the wife filed a petition in Otsego County Family Court under Article 3–A of the Domestic Relations Law, seeking support for herself and the children from her husband. In due course, the petition was forwarded to Wayne County for action to be taken thereon. This Court was unable to obtain service of the first summons for appearance of the respondent on 31 July 1974. A second summons for appearance on 28 August 1974 was also unable to be served on the respondent, and a warrant was issued, which resulted in his appearance before this Court with counsel on 3 September 1974. The respondent was released on his own recognizance for appearance with his attorney at a subsequent date.

A New York Divorce Lawyer said that on 28 June 1974, AM caused a summons for divorce to be served on his wife by the Otsego County Sheriff. A complaint verified 9 August 1974, and apparently prepared by a substituted attorney, was served on PM, following the service of another summons for divorce served on her on 20 July 1974; the proof of service of the summons on 20 July indicates a complaint was also served, but this seems not to be fact, the complaint having been served later.