New York Family Law Blog

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Discusses Auto Liability Policy

by Stephen Bilkis

A perusal of the facts dictates as follows:

A New York Family Lawyer said the company managed largely through its secretary-treasurer was a general lines agent in Orlando for an Accident and Indemnity Company (“Indemnity Company”), with offices just next door to defendant-owner, who by coincidence was in the life insurance business.

On 9 October 1963, defendant-owner contacted the agent, asking for a 24 hour binder liability policy until defendant-owner could come by the agent’s office the following day to get further insurance. The agent complied with the request and bound defendant-owner for 24 hours, and arranged a meeting the following day to give defendant-owner an extended coverage, as requested. The following day, 10 October 1963, the day before his son was to drive the automobile to Tampa, defendant-owner came by the agent’s office to consummate the coverage. The agent filled out defendant-owner’s application, inserted 10 October 1963 as the effective date of the policy, and accepted defendant-owner’s premium of $27.80 at that time. It was near closing time in the agent’s office when he was interrupted by a telephone call, and, being anxious to leave the office anyway, he simply indicated to one of his secretaries to take defendant-owner’s application and money and to give defendant-owner a receipt for the premium, not even bothering in his haste to get defendant-owner’s signature on the application. In the application, which the agent filled out by questions and answers from defendant-owner, all automobile accidents and traffic violations he or his family had during the previous three years were listed by defendant-owner, who also stated that one insurance company had cancelled his insurance because of a disclosed accident. On that same Thursday, 10 October 1963, the application was sent to the indemnity company office in Orlando.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Court Determines Visitation and Custody Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and a woman met in New York. The man was a resident of Florida. The woman got pregnant and gave birth to a son on August 9, 2007. A New York Family Lawyer said the father stayed in New York at the mother’s apartment for a fortnight after the baby was born. But the father left New York and returned to Florida. He did not disclose any plans to return to New York nor did he have any plans to bring his son to Florida.

Two months after the child was born, the mother filed a case in the Family Court of New York for the sole child custody of her son. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said five months during the pendency of the mother’s petition for sole child custody, the father appeared and filed an application for sole child custody or at least visitation rights.

During the pendency of the mother’s action for child custody, their son remained with her but the father was able to have one-day visits with their son nine times. He was able to get one overnight visit and one weekend visit with their son in New York. And the child was able to stay with his father for one week in Florida.

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 23, 2012

Court Determines if Insurance in Effect at time of Accident

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant of the case is Betty Ann Russell, who is a minor and is represented through her father and her next friend, Fred R. Russell. The appellees in the case are Charles A. Eckert and E.R. Heard and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a corporation, Garnishee-Appellee.

The Appeal

Betty Ann Russell, who is a minor, is appealing a final judgment that was issued by the Hillsborough County Circuit Court after a trial without jury. A New York Family Laywer said the issue of the case was between the plaintiff and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a corporation.

Published on: April 22, 2012

queens family

by Stephen Bilkis

The United States of America is the plaintiff and appellee in this case. The defendants and appellants of the case are Mona Watson, Kelvin Jackquet, Anthony Gage, Manuel DeJesus Parada, Luis Rios Castano, Esnoraldo Posado-Rios, Elisa Murga, Carlos Mena, Raul Gamboa, and Carmenza Guzman Varon.

The Case

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the month of December in the year 1992, an indictment charged 35 defendants of drug trafficking and other charges that came about from a conspiracy that started in 1985. The 10 defendants in this case were found guilty of several offenses and the majority of these defendants are now challenging a number of the rulings.

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 20, 2012

Court Hears Motion to Relocate

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the issue of relocation first came in to the lower court previously when the father’s motion to hinder his wife from moving was rendered unsettled when a job opportunity that had precipitated her interest in moving did not come to completion.

However, after an extensive evidentiary proceeding, the court granted the mother’s motion to relocate and the mother moved to other country with her daughter. The father’s motion to stay the relocation pending an appeal was denied by the appellate division as the mother and child then remained in the relocated area. In a decision and order, the appellate division reversed the decision and directed the Supreme Court to fix a date for the production of the child in New York.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said subsequently the Supreme Court, with the consent of the parties, determined that the interests of the child would best be served by permitting her to complete the school year in the relocated area. At a court conference, the parties acknowledged that the child was unhappy with her father about being forced to return to his custody in New York. For that reason, it was agreed that the child would return to New York in early July and that thereafter she and her father would participate in a series of therapeutic visitation sessions under the supervision of a clinical psychologist. The plan was to hold two sessions during the week following her arrival and two more sessions during the following week.

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.