New York Family Law Blog

Published on: May 3, 2012

Defendant Contends Due Process Violation

by Stephen Bilkis

Police undercover operations involving drugs and drug sales are strictly monitored. It is important that the rules are followed so that everyone’s rights are preserved. A New York Family Lawyer said that means that if the police officers do not follow the guidelines that are established in the law, the entire case can be overthrown in court. There may even be grounds for a civil lawsuit if the police violate a person’s rights. In order to be assigned an undercover task, a police officer is required to attend a specialized school that teaches them what they need to know about the laws particular to undercover stings.

In 1970, many of the undercover laws that are used to protect people today did not exist. Much of the case law from that period was used to create the laws that are in use today. On May 5, 1970, at 7:45 in the evening, a trained undercover officer and his informant arranged to go to 201 Westland, in Hartford. The person who lived at that address was a known drug dealer who called himself, “Dickie Boy.” The pair went to the apartment with two support officers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the support officers watched from outside the building as the two went inside. When they got to the apartment in question, they knocked on the door. A black man who was about five foot eleven inches tall answered the door. He had a dark complexion with jet-black hair cut into a short natural afro. He had high cheekbones and a heavy built frame. The undercover team purchased heroin from the dealer and left. When the officer and informant returned to the backup officers, the officer described the drug dealer; one of the backup officers thought that he knew who the dealer was.

When they returned to the police station, the backup officer pulled a photograph of the dealer that he thought matched the description of the man who had sold the undercover team the heroin that evening. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that two days later, when the other officer came in to the office, he saw the picture of the dealer that the backup officer had left for him.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Court Grants Divorce Based on Constructive Abandonment

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple was married in Albania. The couple had five children and all of the children are free from restraint. The children are ages are thirteen, eight, seven, five and four. A New York Family Lawyer said the four youngest children reside with the mother at a shelter in a confidential address, while the eldest child resides with the father at the marital residence, a rented apartment in New York. The couple is both in good health. An Albanian interpreter was provided for the wife throughout the litigation since she does not speak English. Although the husband testified in English during the child custody and visitation trial, he requested the use of an interpreter for the financial trial. The husband’s former attorney was relieved as counsel for the husband shortly after the child custody and visitation decision was rendered. The counsel was substituted.

During the marriage, the husband worked in the construction industry which enabled him to financially support the family and send funds to Albania. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the wife is as a stay-at-home mother as established during the child custody trial. The couple and their children traveled to Albania. The husband returned to the United States after two weeks, however, the wife and children were left in Albania at the parents’ house of the husband for two years. The wife and youngest child left the husband’s parents’ home and went to live with the wife’s family in a nearby village over the objections of the husband and his family while the four eldest children remained with the husband’s parents. Thereafter, the marriage fractured and the husband returned to Albania to bring the four eldest children back to the United States. The wife and youngest child returned to the United States and moved directly into a domestic violence shelter, where the wife and the four youngest children resided. The events of the couple’s life in Albania and their return to New York are the subject of the court’s extensive child custody and visitation decision.

The husband testified to grounds for divorce. He testified that his wife ceased having sexual relations with him. The abandonment took place at the marital residence in New York. The husband further testified that he has requested that the wife resume sexual relations with him. He testified that the wife had no cause or justification for her actions and that there are no physical impairments to him having sexual relations with the wife. He did not condone or consent to her actions. A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer said the parties were married in a civil ceremony therefore there is no barrier to remarry. The wife remained silent, neither admitting nor denying the husband’s testimony. The court reserved its judgment pending the resolution of the supplementary issues.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Rules on “Horiffic” Domestic Violence Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused and his victim had an “on and off” intimate relationship from January 1996 to June 199. In early June of 1997, they had an argument in which he accused her of having an affair with another man. After this argument, the victim broke off contact with him and moved out of his apartment. A New York Family Lawyer said that for over a month, he attempted repeatedly to reconcile with her. Desperate to contact her, the accused left an urgent message with the victim’s family friend stating that he was going to be hospitalized. In response, she called him that evening. During the conversation, the accused lied to the victim and told her that he had cancer. The victim then promised to visit him on 11 July 1997, between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.

On 11 July 1997, the victim arrived at the home of the accused at around 1:00 p.m. The accused was agitated because the victim was late. They first discussed his medical situation. The accused then shifted the focus of their conversation to his desire to have her back. He led her into his bedroom where the conversation continued. When she told him that she did not love him in the manner that he had thought and that she had to get her things from his apartment, he flew into a rage and punched her. He then picked up a hammer and struck her, causing her to fall. A New York Custody Lawyer said while in the process of striking her again, he lost his balance and fell on top of her. She managed to grab the hammer out of his hand. However, he found another hammer and continued striking her. The accused then went to the kitchen, retrieved a knife, and began stabbing her. Finally, he drove the knife into her throat and held it there until she died. The cause of death was multiple blunt and sharp force trauma injuries.

At the trial, the court found that the murder (domestic violence) was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel and gave this aggravating circumstance a great weight. According to the County Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy, there were 144 wounds inflicted on the victim, fifty-seven of which were blunt force trauma injuries consistent with being struck by the flat and claw side of a hammer. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the remaining eighty-seven wounds were sharp force wounds consisting of forty-one stab wounds (i.e., the wounds were deeper than they were long) and forty-six incise wounds (i.e., the wounds were longer than they were deep). The victim had multiple defensive wounds on the palms of her hands and on her arms from blocking the blows and grabbing for a weapon. The examiner testified that she was alive for all but one of the 144 stab wounds and hammer blows. The brutality of the attack, coupled with her defensive wounds, bodily movements, and blood spatter, suggested that she knew she was fighting for her life and was aware of her impending death.

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.