Published on:
Odunbaku v Odunbaku
Published on:
Jones v. Jones
2012 New York Slip Op 50257
The question before the court is whether an admission and positive toxicology report for marijuana use is enough to establish neglect according to the Family Court Act 1012 (f)(1)(B) or Section 1046 (a)(iii). It is the contention of the Administrator of Children Services (ACS) that it is. The ACS claims that the mother’s use of marijuana establishes a case for parental wrongdoing and that a prima facie case isn’t defended by merely showing that the children weren’t harmed. The ACS said that dismissing the petition because of its failure to prevent any tangible evidence of harm is an error of law.
The mother contends that her infant’s positive toxicology for marijuana is in and of itself insufficient proof. It doesn’t prove that the child was harmed or put in any kind of danger. She claims that relying only on the report fails to make a causative connection to the surrounding circumstances.
Published on:
Tzu Ching Kao v. Bonalle
2016 NY Slip Op. 08222
Decision
This appeal was brought by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court of Queens County, October 16, 2014. The order granted portions of the motion which awarded child support and maintenance payments in the amount of $4,887. And $1965. Respectively.
Published on:
Horne v Horne
NY Slip Op 08198
December 7,2016
This is an appeal by the defendant for portions of a divorce judgement from the Supreme Court in Nassau County. The judge denied the defendant’s application for a separate property credit, and order the defendant to pay 2/3 of a HELOC, imputed the defendant’s income at $90K when figuring child support, failed to award spousal maintenance, and ordered the defendant to pay college costs. The judgement also denied equitable distribution of the Plaintiff’s Estee Lauder stock option, and was ordered to pay assessed arrears in the amount of $107K.
Published on:
Behan v. Behan
2016 Slip Op. 08192
December 7, 2016
This case is an appeal by the plaintiff for an order by the Supreme Court. One order granted the plaintiff’s motion to put the action on calendar for a settlement conference and ask for the dismissal of a complaint against the defendant and Anne Hoffman. This order denied the plaintiff the opportunity to reargue a motion requesting a dismissal of the complaint, insofar as it is asserted against Helena Behan.
Published on:
L.B. v. Chief Justice of Probate and Family Court Department
May 4, 2016
Judge Spina commented that in the Guardianship of V.V. 470 Mass 590 (2015) the court ruled that a parent who has a minor child subject to a guardianship proceeding pursuant to G.L. c. 190B. Sec. 5-206 and can’t afford a lawyer does indeed have a right to counsel. The issue here is if a parent has a right to counsel when a parent files a petition to have a guardian removed, or the terms are modified. He court finds that a parent has a right to counsel when they file a petition to have a guardian removed, or the terms modified. The court finds that a parent has a right to counsel for those types of proceedings. The court also offers guidance to the probate and family court, when these guardianship issues occur and to create standards regarding right to counsel.
The plaintiffs are mothers of children where guardians have been appointed pursuant to G.L. c. 190B, Sec. 5-206. They brought this action in County Court, contesting a policy put in place by the Chief Justice of Probate and Family Court regarding the appointment of counsel in guardianship proceedings (G.L. 190B). They challenged a memorandum that was released to the court personnel regarding this issue.
Published on:
Matter of a Proceeding for Custody and to Surrender and Terminate Parental Rights. Hope, B. Petitioner v. Avery, G. Respondent
Jeffery Kaplan, Esq. of Levine & Kaplan for Petitioner
Ari Gourvitz, Esq. of Gourvitz and Grourvitz for Respondent
The parents jointly sought child custody to the Petitioner mother, and voluntary termination and surrender of the father’s parental rights. At the time of the hearing the child was one year old.
Published on:
Family Offense Proceeding Under Article 8 of the Family Court Act
January 22, 2016
Attorney for Petitioner was Maria V. De La Cruz of Jamaica. The attorney for the defendant was Heather Lothrop of Kew Gardens.
The respondent Sandy C. filed for an Order Compelling the Petitioner, Carlos L., to serve a bill of particulars, which is granted (Civil Practice Law and Rules sec. 3041. 3042 [a]).
Published on:
Matter of Mathew L. (Beryl P.-Zenaida A.)
Slip Op 07087
October 27, 2017
This is regarding an order for disposition regarding four children, entered on August 2014, and brings up an issue of a fact-finding order. It was concluded that the father (respondent) had neglected the children, which was affirmed. The order was affirmed to the degree that it was found that the father had neglected a fifth child. A subsequent appeal on this issue was dismissed.
Published on:
Liebowitz v. Liebowitz
Slip Op 06475
October 52016
This is an appeal by the plaintiff to enforce portions of a divorce judgment from Westchester County, which was entered in December of 2013. In the judgment, the defendant was ordered to maintain his term life insurance until the 20-year term expired. The court ordered the judgment modified by deleting number 21 decretal paragraph, as so modified. The judgment is affirmed and remitted to the Superior Court of Westchester County for a hearing and entry of judgment of divorce. This will include replacement of the 21st decretal paragraph directing both parties to maintain their existing life insurance policies, naming their children as the beneficiaries. The plaintiff is to maintain her policy for 20 years and the defendant’s whole life insurance policy (#4819835) and its cash surrender value is the, in defendant’s separate property.