New York Family Law Blog

Published on: May 5, 2015

Court Discusses Child’s Eligibility for State Assistance Programs

by Stephen Bilkis

Under the Federal public assistance program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), family income is considered in determining a child’s eligibility for relief. All of a natural father’s income is typically deemed available to his child, but the situation is more complicated where stepfathers are found. The Federal Regulations allow consideration of all of the stepfather’s income in estimating the child’s eligibility only if the applicable State law establishes a general obligation on all stepfathers to support their stepchildren, but not where the stepfather is liable to support only a stepchild likely to be a public charge.

In this decision we find, after reconciling a confusing statutory scheme, that in New York there is no general obligation of stepfathers to support their stepchildren, and that these support obligations only occur where the child is otherwise to become a public charge, or under special circumstances of agreement or estoppel. Accordingly, the stepfather’s entire income is not automatically figured to the stepchild, but as explained below, on familiar social services principles, only so much of it as is actually devoted to the child.

Published on: May 4, 2015

Court Discusses Outcome of Juvenile Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent has moved to vacate this Court’s order dated February 21, 2007 which, upon his consent, extends his placement with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (“OCFS”) as a juvenile delinquent for twelve months and directs that OCFS continue respondent’s present placement with L & W, an authorized agency within the meaning of Social Services Law §371 (10).

In support of the motion to vacate the Court’s order extending his placement with OCFS for L & W, respondent contends that: (i) the Family Court was without jurisdiction to extend placement; (ii) the proceedings were defective in that the Court did not have the authority to reconvert the proceeding from a Person in Need of Supervision (“PINS”) proceeding to a juvenile delinquency proceeding; and (iii) even assuming that the Court had jurisdiction to extend placement with OCFS that placement could not be extended beyond his 18th birthday without his consent.

Published on: May 3, 2015

Court Decides of License for Foster Care Should be Revoked

by Stephen Bilkis

An application pursuant to CPLR Article 78 by petitioners PJB and VJB to, inter alia, annul the determination of respondent SCO Family of Services (SCO) dated May 6, 2010, which concluded that petitioners’ residence located at 419 Pine Place, Uniondale, New York could no longer be maintained as a foster home and would be closed effective May 28, 2010, is determined as follows.

Motion by respondent SCO pursuant to CPLR 1001(a) and 1003 to dismiss the proceeding for failure to join an indispensable party is determined as follows.

Since in or about 2005, petitioners, who allege that they possess a certificate for the care of children at board with the Nassau County Department of Social Services, have operated a foster home for the care of children at 419 Pine Street, Uniondale, New York under the auspices of respondent SCO,1 a not-for-profit foster care agency authorized by the New York State Office of Children’s and Family Services to provide foster care services.2 According to petitioners, they have successfully housed several children since in or about 2005 when their relationship with the Salvation Army began.

Published on: May 2, 2015

Court Decides Case Under Election Law Sec.330

by Stephen Bilkis

In two proceedings under the Election Law (Section 330) for the judicial recanvass, review and recount of all the absentee and military ballots cast in the last general election for the office of District Court Judge of the County of Nassau, in the Third Assembly District, one proceeding having been brought by Frank X. Altimari, the candidate of the Republican Party, and the other proceeding having been brought by Julius R. Lippman, the candidate of the Democratic Party, the candidate Altimari appeals from the following judgment and order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County: (1) a judgment entered January 22, 1965 after a prior appeal and the hearing held pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ remittitur thereon, dated January 7 1965, 15 N.Y.2d 686, 256 N.Y.S.2d 133, 204 N.E.2d 332 [and amended February 11, 1965], which judgment declared that the two military ballots numbered 33-1 and 33-2 are valid and constitute two additional votes for candidate Lippman and that there is a tie vote for the said office, and directed that the Board of Canvassers amend its statement of canvass and the Board of Elections certify the results accordingly; and (2) an order entered January 20, 1965, which denied the candidate Altimari’s motion to reopen the proceedings so as to permit the introduction of newly discovered evidence with respect to the residence and qualification of the two voters who cast and mailed the said military ballots 33-1 and 33-2.

Judgment reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and proceedings remitted to Special Term to take plenary proof with respect to the eligibility and qualifications to vote of the persons who cast and mailed to two military ballots numbered 33-1 and 33-2; an for a determination as to the validity of said ballots based upon such proof. No questions of fact were considered.

The order reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and motion granted.

Published on: May 1, 2015

Court Decides Adoption Law Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The court records establish that on May 6, 2003, the court adjudicated the Child V.(d.o.b. October 19, 2002, the “Child”) a neglected child under Article 10 of the Family Court Act and issued a final order of placement for one year, placing the Child in the custody of the Department of Social Services (“DSS”). On November 6, 2003, C. L. filed a paternity petition. The court granted the petition on April 7, 2004 and issued a written order of filiation on April 18, 2004. On October 15, 2005 C.L. filed a petition for visitation with the Child (the “Visitation Petition”). DSS filed a petition to terminate C.L.’s parental rights on November 21, 2005 (the “TPR Petition”). Ms. G, who had voluntarily placed the Child in the custody of DSS shortly after her birth, died in December of 2005. The foster parents, who wish to adopt the Child, moved to intervene in the adjudication of the Visitation Petition. The motion to intervene was denied by order of this court dated August 12, 2005.

The Department of Social Services moved this court for a hearing to determine whether C.L. is a person whose consent to the adoption of the Child is required under Domestic Relations Law §111 or whether C.L. is limited to receiving notice of the adoption proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law §384-c.

Published on: April 8, 2015

Court Decides to Appoint Natural Mother as Guardian to Start Obtaining Legal Residency for Kids

by Stephen Bilkis

In this appeal, we conclude that the subject children, facing the possibility of being separated from their only parent and returned to their native country where gang members have threatened their lives, may seek to have their natural mother appointed as their guardian as a first step toward obtaining legal residency in the United States.

The subject children, Samuel D.H., Marisol N.H., and Silvia J.H., ages 19, 18, and 16, respectively, were born in El Salvador to Miriam A.G. (hereinafter the mother) and Leonidas H. (hereinafter the father). According to the allegations made in support of the petitions, the father drank often, and he verbally and physically abused the mother. When Samuel was just four years old, the mother left the father, taking the children with her to her mother’s home. The father never again had meaningful contact with the children; he did not provide them with any financial support, give them any birthday or Christmas presents, or show any interest in them.

Published on: April 7, 2015

Plaintiff Asks Court for Leave to Serve Defendant via Publication

by Stephen Bilkis

In February 1971, plaintiff made application to this Court for leave to serve the defendant by publication and for permission to proceed as a poor person. Though service was made on the County of Nassau, they neither appeared nor opposed the application. By decision dated February 17, 1972, this Court granted the application to serve the defendant by publication, but denied the application to proceed as a poor person. The Court held therein that the moving papers were deficient.

‘Plaintiff sets forth in her affidavit that she has been employed by the Westbury Board of Education as a secretary at an annual salary of $5460.00 since October 1971 and in addition thereto received supplemental public assistance to augment her income to spend upon such work related expenses, such as baby-sitting, car fares, lunches, etc., but nowhere in the moving papers does she set forth the amount of supplemental income.’

Published on: April 6, 2015

Court Listens to Case Dealing with Judicial Economy

by Stephen Bilkis

This personal injury action, stemming from a multi-vehicle collision, raises interesting issues regarding consolidation, venue, comity, judicial economy, the avoidance of forum shopping, and a seeming conflict between the “first-in-time rule” and the convenience of material witnesses where actions have been filed in two or more counties concerning the same set of facts. The novel aspect of this motion to consolidate and to transfer venue is that prior to the institution of the aforecaptioned action in this Court, the second lawsuit in this litigation, a Justice of Supreme Court, Kings County, transferred the first action to Suffolk County.

The plaintiff DD, a resident of Bergen County, New Jersey, was allegedly injured on November 16, 2008, at 4:45 A.M., while driving in Kings County, New York, on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway near the Williamsburg Bridge. According to a police accident report, taken by the New York City Police Department, the accident involved four vehicles, and two persons were allegedly injured.

Published on: April 5, 2015

Court Discusses Family Succession Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR to review a determination of the respondent, City of New York, Department of Housing Preservation and Development (hereafter referred to as “HPD”), which purported to deny Petitioner’s appeal for family succession rights pursuant to 28 RCNY§3-02(p) concerning a Mitchell-Lama apartment Petitioner occupies with his wife and nine children. The apartment Is owned and operated by the respondent, Kent Village Housing Company, Inc. (hereafter referred to as “Kent Village”) and is known as Apartment 4D at 116 Clymer Street, Brooklyn, New York (hereafter referred to as the “Apartment”). In his petition Petitioner alleges that he never applied for family succession rights to the Apartment Instead,

Petitioner contends that he Is a co-tenant who has been named on the lease for the Apartment since In or around 1997. Petitioner further alleges that he resides In the Apartment based upon his own rights as a co-tenant and that there Is no statutory basis for HPD to Institute, prosecute or determine any proceedings In Petitioner’s name for family succession rights to the Apartment Therefore, Petitioner argues that HPD’s determination denying him family succession rights and authorizing his eviction from the Apartment Is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, affected by errors of law and in violation of lawful procedure. Accordingly, Petitioner seeks a Judgment annulling and vacating HPD’s determination and declaring Petitioner’s rights vis-a-vis HPD and Kent Village with respect to the Apartment

Published on: April 4, 2015

Petitioners Claim Previous Court Determinations Were Arbitrary and Capricious

by Stephen Bilkis

In this proceeding was instituted pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR by Mr. and Mrs. Banks, public assistance recipients, compelling Respondents to pay the balance owed by the Banks for the installation of a heating system in their home.

Mrs. Banks is the fee owner of the home where she and her husband live together with their six minor children. In 1965, before the Banks were receiving public assistance, they ordered on time payment the installation of a heating system for the second floor of their home to make that floor habitable for the children of their burgeoning family during the winter. They have been receiving public assistance continuously since 1966.