New York Family Law Blog

Published on: April 30, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A “husband” (also referred to as decedent or deceased) and his wife were married for forty years at the time of his death. They had four children together, and she had two from a previous marriage. A New York Family Lawyer the husband was Jewish and his wife was not. They celebrated some religious holidays with the family, but they did not belong to a temple, nor did the children regularly attend services. The husband never had a bar mitzvah ceremony. The husband’s family had a family plot in Mount Hebron Cemetery, a Jewish cemetery in New York, purchased by the husband’s grandfather. All of the husband’s family and their spouses were buried there. The husband and his wife lived in New York until 1998 when they moved to Florida.

After relocating to Florida, the husband began to have health problems. Around 1999, the husband told his wife that he wanted to be buried in his family plot in Mount Hebron with her. However, in May of 2001, when the husband went into the hospital, he and his wife first discussed being buried together in Florida.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Determines if Personal Jurisdiction Present in Divorce Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On 18 May 1981, in the hopes of forming a family, appellant husband and his wife got married in Queens, New York. The parties then resided in West Germany until May 1983 when the wife left West Germany and moved to Montgomery, Alabama.

A New York Family Lawyer said the husband has petitioned the court for the dissolution of his marriage and filed it in Okaloosa County, Florida. He alleges that he is currently domiciled in Okaloosa County and has been a resident of Florida for at least six months before filing his petition.

In opposition, the wife moves to dismiss the petition and states that the court lacks jurisdiction over the parties because the husband has not been a physical resident of the State of Florida for at least six months next prior to the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.

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.