New York Family Law Blog

Published on: January 8, 2013

Court Decides if Defendant Has the Right to Challenge Alabama Divorce Decree

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of Sullivan County. The plaintiff of the case is Sonia Rosenbluth and the defendant is Herbert Rosenbluth. The plaintiff is seeking a separation based on the grounds of non support and abandonment. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant has conceded the issue of abandonment. Abandonment without justification would indicate a decree of separation in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant argues that the abandonment was justified, stating that he left the plaintiff when it was determined that her divorce from her first husband in the state of Alabama was found to be void. The defendant is seeking an annulment of their marriage on this basis.

Case Facts

The plaintiff was married to Edward V. Langston prior to the 8th of August, 1956. Langston and the plaintiff lived in Orange County New York during their marriage. Langston was never present physically in the state of Alabama and the plaintiff was employed in Newburgh, New York during the marriage. A New York Custody Lawyer said the plaintiff took a vacation from her job to go to Alabama for the purpose of obtaining a divorce. It is clear that during the marriage the plaintiff and her former husband lived in New York and were never residents of Alabama.

Published on: January 8, 2013

Can an Orthodox Jewish Divorce bar a Divorce in New York?

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being held before the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County. The issue involves the question of whether or not the delivery of an Orthodox Jewish divorce, called a “Get” can be registered in the state of Israel and act as a bar for litigation pertaining to a divorce in the state of New York. The plaintiff in this particular case is Alexander Tsirlin and the defendant of the case is Alla Tsirlin.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff husband began this action on the 11th of July, 2006 to obtain a divorce on the ground of abandonment and an order to grant the couple joint custody of their son Jonathon, with the wife obtaining physical custody and a set visitation schedule provided to the husband. He also requested a set amount of child support in accordance with child support standards.

Published on: January 7, 2013

Court Decides if Mexican Divorce Decree is Valid in U.S.

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Special and Trial Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County. The plaintiff in the case is Lewis S. Rosenstiel. He is requesting that the court use its authority to grant an annulment of his marriage to the defendant Susan L. Rosenstiel. He entered the marriage with the defendant on the 30th of November, 1956. The defendant argues that this marriage cannot be legal or deemed valid as the defendant’s previous marriage and divorce to Felix E. Kaufmann must be rejected as a nullity under the laws of the state of New York.

Court Discussion

A New York Family Lawyer said the issue that is put before this court is whether or not the decree for divorce that was made in Mexico is legitimate. The determination of whether or not the divorce in Mexico is considered valid effects the overall decision of this court in whether or not an annulment of the plaintiff’s marriage to the defendant should be granted.

Published on: January 6, 2013

Defendant Contends He Received an Unfair Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

Upon the notice of motion dated July 2, 2010, defendant moves via his attorney for an order pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) sections 440.10(1)(H) and 440.20 to vacate the within conviction and to have his sentence therewith set aside. A New York Family Lawyer said defendant argues that his conviction should be vacated and the sentence set aside because of ineffective assistance of counsel, in that, although alibi notice was served and on notice with the court, trial counsel failed to present defendant’s alibi defense and did not call alibi witnesses whose testimony would have exculpated defendant from the within conviction. A hearing on this matter was granted without objection from counsel and held on October 28, 2010. The hearing was continued on December 16, 2010 with oral argument of counsel.

On February 3, 1993 at approximately 8:45 pm at 1033 Broadway in Kings County, the defendant along with three companions was alleged to have robbed four persons inside a pool hall located at that address. A New York Custody Lawyer said the defendant was said to be armed and in the course of the robbery shot two persons one died and the other was wounded, an eyewitness. Eyewitnesses identified the defendant out of a line-up and photo array as one of the people who committed the crimes. Defendant was charged with Murder in the Second Degree, Attempted Murder in the Second Degree, Robbery in the First Degree, and two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon.

A Suffolk County Family Lawyer said that, alibi notice had been presented in this matter by defendant’s former Legal Aid attorney which offered the defense that defendant could not have committed the acts he is charged with because at the time of the commission of said crimes defendant was eighteen blocks away at 1217 Jefferson Avenue in Kings County, his family home. Defendant had intended to call the two tenants who live at 1217 Jefferson Avenue. The alibi notice dated April 12, 1993 is addended to defendant’s motion as exhibit A.

Published on: January 6, 2013

Court Determines that Equitable Distribution Does not Terminate Upon Death of One Spouse

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case before the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. The respondent in the matter is Harold J. Peterson. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendants and appellant of the case is Joel Goldberg, et al. The case before the court involves the issue of whether a cause of action for equitable distribution of an estate can be made by a person who has been granted a divorce in a foreign state prior to the death of the party in question.

Case Facts

Harriet Goldberg is the decedent of the plaintiff and lived as husband and wife with the defendant Joel Goldberg. The couple separated and the husband left the home in New York to live in Florida. The wife completed an instant action for divorce and ancillary relief in 1986. The husband procured an ex parte divorce judgment in the state of Florida in 1987. This effectively terminated the status of the couple as husband and wife. The husband remarried after the divorce was final. The divorce court in Florida did not attempt to make a settlement of the ancillary property issues that were relevant in the marriage being terminated.

Published on: January 5, 2013

Child Perishes Due to Neglect and Abuse

by Stephen Bilkis

CC, born on 1 June 1984, was removed from the care of her parents, A and B, on 11 July 1984 and placed in foster care by the Nassau County Department of Social Services pursuant to Family Court Act § 1024. On 12 July 1984, the Department of Social Services filed a neglect petition alleging that CC is a neglected child as defined by § 1012 of the Family Court Act.

A New York Family Lawyer said on or about 10 July 1984, A beat CC’s half sibling, DD, to a degree that it caused said half sibling death on July 11, 1984. A beat said half sibling with such force and effect to cause said half sibling to hemorrhage into his abdomen which was a result of lacerations of the mesentery, with a rupture of the small bowel. In addition, DD had multiple rib fractures on both sides. B was present while DD was being beaten and failed to take any steps whatsoever to prevent it from happening or continuing. It is most likely that CC will be treated in a similar manner.

By order of this Court, dated 18 July 1984, temporary custody of CC was placed in the Department of Social Services. By amended temporary order of 26 October 1984, temporary custody was continued in the Department of Social Services, with visitation for the parents to be arranged by the Department.

Published on: January 5, 2013

Incarceration is Determined to Be Legal Grounds for Divorce

by Stephen Bilkis

Rhonda Covington is the appellant in this case and Carlton Walker is the respondent. This case is being heard in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York. The issue that is being brought before the court is whether the cause of action made by the plaintiff for a divorce on the grounds of imprisonment is barred by the five year statute of limitations as it was commenced sixteen years after the defendant was confined.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the couple in this case was married in May of 1983. In January of 1984, the defendant was arrested for the robbery and shooting death of a cab driver. He was convicted in 1985 for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and murder in the second degree. He was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life. The defendant has been imprisoned since he was first arrested. The plaintiff was convicted for the same crimes as the defendant is also in prison.

Published on: January 4, 2013

Court Determines Improper Use of Separation Agreement

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being held in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Richmond County. The plaintiff of the case is P.B. and the defendant is L.B. The defendant wife has filed a motion for dismissal of the plaintiff’s action for divorce.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the couple was married in September of 1996. In July of 2005, the parties entered a written agreement of separation. This was filed with the clerk in the Richmond County Court. On the fourteenth page of the separation agreement it states that the husband shall not pursue a divorce against the wife for a period of five years after signing this agreement without the prior written consent of the wife.

Published on: January 2, 2013

Father Seeks Visitation in Adoption Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said this proceeding is an adoption and a matrimonial wherein respondent father sought enforcement of the visitation provisions of a separation agreement. The mother and her new husband appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County entered 20 October 1983, as, pursuant to an order dated 12 May 1982, removed the adoption proceeding from the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, and consolidated it with the motion pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied an application to dispense with the father’s consent to a proposed adoption, granted the father specific visitation with the child, and awarded appellant mother only $7,700 in arrears of child support.

The court modifies, on the facts, by increasing the sum of accrued child support payments from $7,700 to $8,020. Accordingly, the court affirms the judgment insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

A New York Custody Lawyer said on 4 November 1973, the appellant mother was married to the respondent father. On 1 December 1976 their only child was born. On 8 June 1979, the mother and respondent entered into a written separation agreement and on 28 July 1980, they were divorced by judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The provisions of the separation agreement survived the divorce decree.

Published on: January 2, 2013

Plaintiff Reports Divorce Papers Signed Under Duress

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard before the Special Term of the Supreme Court of Nassau County in the state of New York. This plaintiff in this case is Jean DiRusso and the defendants in the case are Fortunato DiRusso and Regina Anna DiRusso. A New York Family Lawyer said the action before the court is for a declaratory judgment and is the fifth litigation brought forth between the plaintiff wife and the defendant husband. The plaintiff wife is seeking a judgment stating that she is the lawful wife of the defendant husband and that the defendant husband and the defendant, Regina Anna Furrer-DiRusso are not husband and wife. The plaintiff is asking that the defendant husband be required to support the plaintiff and that he and the defendant Regina Anna Furrer provide fees for counsel and disbursements for prosecution in this action.

The defendants have answered and join in a request for a declaratory judgment and counterclaim for a declaration that the plaintiff wife is not the lawful wife and that he and Regina Anna Furrer are legally married.

Case Background