New York City

Published on: September 14, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case that involves Hector G. as the petitioner versus Josefina P. as the respondent and Josefina P. as the petitioner against Hector G. as the respondent. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Bronx County.

Case Questions

A New York Family Lawyer said this particular case raises two different questions in regard to the application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act. The father in this case argues that title three of the act requires that the court enforce the custody order that was made by the court in the Dominican Republic. The mother contends that this court may assume the jurisdiction over the parental custody case and modify or replace the order that was made in the Dominican Republic.

Published on: August 27, 2012

Mother Seeks Modification of Visitation Arrangement

by Stephen Bilkis

On a motion for a change of child custody by a father whose former wife has breached the restrictive residence provision of a non-merged separation agreement by surreptitiously removing the children of the marriage to California, two equally strong policies are contra posed to each other. A New York Family Lawyer said the policy of courts to jealously protect the visitation rights of a non-custodial parent, and on the other, the policy of deferring jurisdiction of custody disputes to that jurisdiction best able to hear all relevant evidence concerning the children’s past, present and future circumstances.

The court determines that it is in the children’s best interests that the matter be heard in California, where nearly all the relevant evidence can be found. The case involves neither child snatching nor forum shopping. Moreover, the papers before the court strongly suggest that the father is not, at present, a fit custodian of the children whereas the mother has made a strong showing that the children’s welfare has substantially improved in California. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that since the court is confident that the California courts will be sensitive to the father’s visitation rights, the court declines to exercise its jurisdiction on the condition that appropriate proceedings should be promptly commenced in the California courts.

In a separation agreement dated June 22, 1982, the complainant mother and the father agreed that the mother would have the child custody and the father would have reasonable rights of visitation upon 48 hours notice. It was further agreed that the mother would not remove with the children more than 200 miles from New York without the father’s consent.

Published on: August 22, 2012

Court Decides Jursidiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

Petitioner mother and respondent father were married in Colorado in 1979. They had a child born in Wyoming. Thereafter the mother filed for divorce in Wyoming. A New York Family Lawyer said at about that time, the mother moved with the child to New York, where they have resided since. During the divorce action, the parties entered into an agreement resolving the issues of child custody, visitation, and support.

The mother was granted custody of the child in New York and the father was awarded liberal visitation, including extended summer visitation with the child in Wyoming. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that settlement agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree rendered by the Wyoming District Court. In 1991, the father brought an application in Wyoming to enforce his visitation rights and prevent the mother from interfering with visitation. The parties reached a stipulation. The Wyoming District Court issued an amended divorce decree incorporating the terms of that stipulation.

The mother petitioned Chautauqua County Family Court for an order modifying visitation.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Mother Requests to Move Out of State

by Stephen Bilkis

Child custody disputes are always difficult for everyone involved. They become even more difficult when a traumatic incident occurs that changes all of the rules. A New York Family Lawyer said that whenever a couple divorces, the custody of the children becomes of paramount concern. If one parent gets primary custody and lives a great distance away, it can pose a hardship on the other parent to maintain a meaningful relationship with the children. It is always the goal of the New York Family Court to take action that is in the best interests of the children. Toward this goal, the New York Family Court seeks to instill in the primary custodial parent that it is essential that the children are not used as leverage against the non-custodial parent. The children will benefit from continuing a positive relationship with both of their parents. Sometimes, this problem is enhanced by traumatic circumstances that have a strong emotional impact on the parents and the children who are involved.

One such case began when a couple were married in 1980 in Florida. By 1986 they had determined that they could not live together and were divorced. They had three children at the time of the divorce. Full custody was awarded to the mother in Florida. In 1988, a man who knew the mother only by acquaintance broke in to her home and kidnapped the two daughters. He raped and tortured the little girls. One of the girls died as a result of the attack. The other one was seriously injured.

Following this incident, the father filed a motion with the Florida Court to change the primary physical custody of the children to him. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the petition was granted and the children moved with their father to Rochester, New York. The father had promised the court under order of the court that he would continue to take the surviving child to counseling to help her deal with the trauma associated with the rape and death of her sister. The mother was granted liberal contact and access to the children.

Published on: August 4, 2012

The parties were both born in Albania

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts

The parties were both born in Albania. On 14 December 1989, plaintiff first moved to the United States after receiving a green card through the American Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. In 1997, he became a United States citizen. Plaintiff lived and worked in the United States continuously from late 1989 until the date of the commencement of the herein action, only returning to Albania for brief vacations over the years, approximately the first six years of the marriage. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff is 48 years of age and defendant is 36 years of age. Plaintiff first returned to Albania in 1992, at which time the parties began to date. The parties became engaged when plaintiff returned to Albania for a six week visit in 1993.

Sometime in September 1995, the parties got married in a civil ceremony in Albania after a two year engagement. Defendant lived with plaintiff’s family after the marriage but plaintiff returned to the United States where he was working six weeks after the marriage.

Published on: July 29, 2012

Family Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

Child custody and visitation issues in divorce actions are traumatic events in the lives of the parents and the children who are affected by the court’s decisions. Many people panic when they file for divorce and fear the loss of custody of their children. When parents panic and make bad decisions as they relate to custody issues, they can adversely affect the outcome of their custody dispute. A New York Family Lawyer said that rather than panic and remove the children from the state, it is always better to discuss your options with a qualified attorney who can fight for your rights legally. When parents abduct their children to avoid losing custody of them, they just about guarantee that they will lose custody of the child.

In June of 1979, a New York woman panicked during a divorce action and absconded with her son to Arizona. The lived in hiding in Arizona until they were discovered in 1981 and the child was returned to New York and placed in the sole custody of his father. At that point, the father filed a petition to have sole custody of the child and restrict any visitation that the mother would have no visitation with the child because he fears that she will attempt to kidnap the boy again. The court Special Term declined to modify the judgment of divorce to prevent the mother from visiting with the boy. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the father made a motion to the Supreme Court to modify the decree. The mother countered that motion with her own motion to prevent a modification of the decree.

The court discovered that the mother had filed a motion with the Family court in Arizona. The first decision that became necessary was which court would have jurisdiction over the dispute. The New York Family Court had first declined to make any modification to the motion for a divorce decree because they felt that Arizona should have the jurisdiction over the custody dispute and that New York would be an inconvenient location to try the case. The Supreme Court disagreed. They contend that it was inappropriate for the New York Family Court to deny hearing the case and modifying the divorce decree. The original documents had been prepared in New York. New York was the registered home state of the child. The child had only been removed from New York during an illegal action. Therefore, Arizona courts should never have had any type of jurisdiction over the case at all.

Published on: June 26, 2012

Ex-Wife Seeks to Relocate Children to Different State

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, a husband filed an appeal from an order of the court upon a motion by the wife for permission to relocate with the child to the State of Virginia and his motion to enjoin her relocation and to change custody, however, denied his application for an in-camera interview between the court and the child. A New York Family Lawyer said the man also appealed from the orders of the same court which denied his motion to enjoin the former wife from relocating with the child and for the transfer of child custody to him. He also appealed for the granted motion of the court for his wife for permission to relocate and the awarded custody of the child to the mother and from the awarded counsel fees and expenses to the wife.

The parties were married and filed for their divorced. They had one son and their separation agreement provided for joint custody with each having physical custody of the child during alternating weeks, until the child’s fifth birthday or until he enters kindergarten. Thereafter and for the next three years, the mother was to have weekday custody of the child during the school year and the father was to have custody every weekend. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that after the child’s eighth birthday or when he entered the third grade, the custody arrangement would be reversed in which the father would have weekday custody during the school year and the mother having custody on the weekends. During the summers, the parent with weekday custody would have custody on the weekends and vice versa.

Moreover, the separation agreement also provided that in the event that such a move becomes necessary, either parent shall have the absolute right to relocate out of New York State to another geographical area, including, but not limited to Boston or Washington, so long as the new residence of that parent is within a one hour direct flight time to or from New York, exclusive of ground travel, plus one hour of ground travel to or from each airport and the residence of each parent, without causing a modification of the custody provisions.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Court Unravels Money Laundering Scheme

by Stephen Bilkis

Seven insurance companies are the plaintiffs in this case and they are appealing a decision that was made in favor of the defendant, Dreyfus Service Corporation granting a summary judgment dismissing the case. A New York Family Lawyer said that throughout the decade of the 90s, the insurance companies were looted by a fraud scheme that was perpetrated by Martin Frankel. The insurance companies (the receivers) in the original case at hand were seeking to impose civil RICO liability and tort on Dreyfus Service Corporation as they were the investment company that was used by Frankel to funnel money through the funds of the insurance companies.

The district court heard the case and reviewed the federal and New York laws in the manner granted a summary judgment that was in favor of the defendant for each claim made by the insurance companies. For the court came to the conclusion that there were 8 accounts where no duty came to the seven insurance companies and the receivers failed to exhibit causation for the other 5 accounts regarding the tort claims. The court decided that there was no way to find anyone at Dreyfus Service Corporation who deliberately ignored the money laundering activities of Frankel in regard to the RICO claim.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the plaintiffs are appealing this initial verdict of a summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

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: 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.