New York Family Law Blog

Published on: February 27, 2014

The issue in this case is whether the motion of the defendant to dismiss the indictment should be granted.

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, on January 29, 1967 the defendant was arrested for felonious assault committed by him upon his wife by slashing her face with a knife. On the following day, defendant was arraigned on that charge in the Criminal Court of Queens County and was held in bail. The matter was adjourned on a number of occasions, until February 10th, when, after a hearing was had, defendant was held for the action of the grand jury. On March 15, 1967, the indictment herein was returned, and it charged defendant with two counts of assault in the second degree. On March 29th after counsel was assigned to defendant, he was arraigned on that indictment, plead not guilty, and the matter was adjourned. On May 11, 1967, upon motion of his counsel (and not by the district attorney as defendant erroneously states in his affidavit), an order was made in this Court transferring this matter to the Family Court.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, defendant apparently remained incarcerated until July, when upon a writ of habeas corpus he was paroled ‘pending his appearance in the Family Court on August 7, 1967’ and the district attorney was directed to submit an order transferring the matter to that court. On August 22nd the Family Court advised defendant that that court did not choose to handle the matter. It thereupon sent the case to the Criminal Court of the City of New York although the transfer to it had been made by the Supreme Court. The Criminal Court thereafter dismissed the proceeding before it and the procedures relative to the pending indictment were thereupon continued in this Court.

The issue in this case is whether the motion of the defendant to dismiss the indictment should be granted.

Published on: February 26, 2014

Court Discusses Domestic Relations Law 240

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in this case a father who is serving 25 years to life for murdering the mother of his children (i.e., murder in the second degree) seeks to modify the provisions of the custody order which give him no communication, contact or visitation rights with his children. The motion to dismiss his petition is granted because there is no change of circumstances to justify even getting to a best interests test. He also alleges a violation of certain alleged rights to get information about the children under the custody order. The two subject children one boy (born December 27, 2000, age 9) and one girl (born January 29, 2002, age 8). The respondents herein, the maternal aunt and uncle of the children, were awarded custody of the children after the children’s mother was murdered by their father, the petitioner herein. On October 19, 2009, the father filed two sworn, pro se petitions.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, the father’s first petition seeks to modify a prior Order of Family Court, alleging that the uncle had told the father that the children wish to visit the father and have written and telephone contact with the father, and that they assent to visitation and understand the father’s incarceration and emotional and other ramifications. On December 2, 2009, counsel for the aunt and uncle cross-petitioned for summary judgment dismissing the father’s visitation petition, alleging that the father failed to state a sufficient change of circumstances to support a modification.

A Suffolk Visitation Lawyer said that, the father’s second petition alleges a violation of the prior order of Family Court. The father alleges that the aunt and uncle willfully failed to obey the court order by not providing at least annual updates regarding the status of the children’s health, education and general well-being as well as updated photographs of the children. Counsel for the aunt and uncle also cross-petitioned for dismissal of this violation petition, arguing that the judge struck from the order the provisions to which they had otherwise agreed which would have allowed the respondents to initiate contact or communication with the father. Thus, they contend there has been no violation. Counsel for the father opposed both motions for dismissal, after time was extended for him to respond through counsel in writing. The Children’s Attorney filed papers in support of the motions, requesting that both petitions be dismissed.

Published on: February 25, 2014

Wife Contends Husband Attempted to Conceal Income

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an action for divorce and ancillary relief.

A New York Family Lawyer said that on 29 December 1984, plaintiff wife and defendant husband got married. Sometime in 1989, the defendant went into business with a partner to buy a funeral home in Suffolk County. Plaintiff, on the other hand, operated a separate business which provided headstones, and ran a small karaoke business.

Sometime in March 2004, plaintiff commenced an action for divorce. At that time, the parties had two unemancipated children at.

Published on: February 24, 2014

Court Decides Child Neglect Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

An institution moved to request a decision without a hearing for a child neglect matter. The complainant requested the court to enter a finding of derivative neglect against the mother of the child based on the court’s prior finding of neglect as to the offender’s older children.

A New York Family Lawyer said that in support of the motion, the complainant stated that the derivative neglect appeal was filed in close proximity to the finding of the recent child neglect issue and the condition of the mother’s faulty parenting continued to exist.

Subsequently, the child’s attorney stated that the mother had accepted services and did not exhibit such an impaired level of parental decision as to create a substantial risk of harm to the child, and therefore, the complainant had not met its argument for derivative neglect.

Published on: February 23, 2014

Couple Petitions to Adopt a Child

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said a petition was filed by a couple to adopt a child born on August 9, 2004. Since September 22, 2004 when the adopted child was discharged from the hospital, on the basis of a petition that had been filed alleging that his biological mother had neglected him, has resided in the home of his maternal cousin, and her husband.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the adoption home study prepared by a social worker employed by the foster care agency that has care and custody of the adopted child describes him as a healthy seven-year-old boy with no special needs who is developing age-appropriately, and who is beginning regular second grade classes. The home study also reflects the fact that the adoptive couple has been married for over thirteen years and that they are both employed. Also residing in the home is the couple’s fifteen-year-old biological son. The social worker describes the biological son as healthy, doing well in school, and having a positive and loving relationship with the adopted child. The adoptive parents, their biological son and the adopted child reside in a three bedroom house in Suffolk County, New York.

A Queens Family Lawyer said the couple has been involved in the adopted child’s life since he was a baby. One can see that they love the child very much and that he means the world to them. They were observed by this worker to be very attentive and affectionate toward the adopted child, who lovingly refers to them as mommy and daddy. They share an inseparable bond with the adopted child, and have a good understanding of his needs. They are providing effectively for his physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. They understand and are willing to accept the moral and legal responsibilities of adoption. Their commitment to the child is deep rooted and they have made it clear that he knows that they are there for him. The adopted child feels the same strong sentiments toward this family and although too young to fully comprehend adoption, he is a happy, well-adjusted child for he knows that he is loved and wanted. Based on the overall progress this child has made in the home, it is therefore recommended that the application for adoption submitted by the couple be approved and that the adopted child be adopted by the caring family.

Published on: February 23, 2014

Plaintiff Brings Suit for Malpractice in Divorce Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an action to recover damages for negligence and malpractice.

A New York Family Lawyer said that in the first, third, fifth, and seventh causes of action, plaintiff sought to recover damages for the alleged negligence and malpractice of defendants in the performance of their work in the divorce and custody litigation.

Defendants were psychologists and social workers, some of whom were appointed by the Supreme Court as neutral experts in the plaintiff’s divorce action, and others by the Family Court in a neglect proceeding which was brought against the plaintiff’s wife to aid the court in making determinations about custody of, and visitation with, the plaintiff’s children. In support of their respective motions to dismiss, defendants submitted affidavits concerning their work in the previous litigation and the orders pursuant to which they were appointed to aid the courts.

Published on: February 22, 2014

Plaintiff Makes Application for Orders in Divorce Proceedings

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said this is an action for divorce where plaintiff wife has made applications for orders: directing defendant husband to vacate the marital home; to provide support and maintenance for her and the issue of the marriage; and to restrain him from removing furnishings, furniture and personal property from the residence.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that on 30 April 1971, when the motions were originally submitted, the court discovered that an application which had been made to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for an order of protection was being sent to the Family Court, Nassau County, for determination. Upon inquiring with the Nassau Family Court, that information was confirmed. Apparently, since the motions concerned ‘relief associated with the Family Court proceeding’, the Suffolk Family Court referred them to the Nassau Family Court for hearing and determination. However, the applications were referred back to them.

On 9 June 1971, the Suffolk Family Court returned the matters to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, the court at bar, for determination.

Published on: February 21, 2014

Court Hears Custody Battle

by Stephen Bilkis

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, a New York Family Lawyer said the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Queens County, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the father’s petition for sole custody of the subject child.

A New York Custody Family Lawyer said that the mother and the father were married in 2000, and after the birth of the subject child later that year, they lived together in their native country of Peru. After an altercation with the father in January 2006, the mother left the marital home with the subject child. In May 2006, during the pendency of a custody proceeding commenced by the father in Peru, the mother took the subject child to the United States and settled on Long Island with her boyfriend and his family, without informing the father of their whereabouts.

In March 2008, after discovering the whereabouts of the mother and the subject child, and after learning that the mother had, in May 2007, obtained an order from the Family Court, Queens County, awarding her custody of the subject child upon the father’s default, the father commenced this proceeding in the same court, seeking custody of the subject child. The Family Court conducted a hearing on the father’s petition, at which it heard testimony from the father and the mother, as well as a court-appointed forensic psychologist who, inter alia, interviewed the parties and the subject child and rendered a comprehensive evaluation specifically addressing the impact on the subject child of a change in custody.

Published on: February 20, 2014

Appellant Brings Motion for Final Accounting

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, in which the successor guardian of the person and property of the incapacitated person moved to settle his final account, the successor guardian appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 4, 2011, as, upon judicially settling his final account, after a hearing, imposed a surcharge against him in the sum of $123,506.59 and denied him commissions and an attorney’s fee, and the Public Administrator of Queens County, cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as denied her request, made in connection with her objections to the final account, to include 9% interest on the sum surcharged.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, on July 23, 2004, the attorney (hereinafter the appellant) was appointed the successor guardian of the person and property of the who was then a 76-year-old incapacitated person. In April 2007, the appellant appointed his wife, as the incapacitated person’s “nurse geriatric care manager.” The appellant’s wife provided geriatric care management services to the former through a solely-owned company named Family Care Connections, LLC (hereinafter Family Care), which she formed in 2007. Family Care received total payments from the appellant, as Albert K.’s successor guardian, in the aggregate sum of $111,881.98.

A Queens Full Custody Lawyer said that, in an order dated October 13, 2009, the Supreme Court confirmed a report of the appointed court examiner regarding the appellant’s accounts, and directed the appellant to appear at a hearing to address the payments made to Family Care on the incapacitated person’s behalf and, inter alia, whether the appellant should be surcharged for such payments. At the hearing, the appellant’s wife testified about her credentials and experience, and described the services she provided to the incapacitated person. At his home in April 2007, this included managing and training full-time health care aides, until he was hospitalized in October 2007. Although the incapacitated person never returned home after his initial hospitalization in October 2007, and received full-time care at the various facilities where he subsequently resided, the appellant’s continued to provide him with, among other things, full-time health care aides until he died in a nursing home on July 29, 2009.

Published on: February 19, 2014

Court Determines Placement of Children

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said a couple was married and the mother gave birth to their child later that year. They lived together in their native country. But, after an argument that happened between the couple, the mother left the marital home with her child.

Thereafter, during the pendency of a custody proceeding initiated by the father, the mother took her child and settled with her new boyfriend and his family, without informing the father of their location.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that subsequently, after the father discovers the location of the mother and their child, and after learning that the mother had obtained an order from the family court with regards the custody of their child upon the father’s default, the father initiated a proceeding in the same court, seeking child custody.