New York City

Published on: December 12, 2012

Court Discusses Concept of Equitable Estoppel

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner seeks visitation with the subject child, the biological child of the respondent. The petitioner and respondent married sometime after the child’s birth. A New York Family Lawyer said the child was born on November 17, 1997 and nearly two years later the petitioner executed an acknowledgment of paternity and had his name added to the child’s birth certificate. For several years the couple held him out to be her biological father even though they knew he was not. The petitioner and respondent began having marital problems and the child’s biological father, at some point apparently came back into the respondent’s life. A Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that, the child’s biological father seeks an order of filiation and the respondent seeks to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, claiming her signature on it was forged. The biological father and the mother filed their respective petitions simultaneously. In addition, the respondent is pursuing a family offense proceeding against her estranged husband alleging that he verbally harassed her over the phone. A criminal case based on allegations made by the mother against her estranged husband is also pending before this court.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, a hearing was commenced with respect to the respondent mother’s petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity on the grounds of fraud. During the hearing, however, and after the biological father filed his paternity petition, the parties conceded that he is the subject child’s biological father. Independent DNA testing of the biological father confirmed his paternity. This evidence obviates the need for the court to continue taking testimony with respect to the allegations of fraud because Family Court Act Â§ 516-a (b), the statute governing acknowledgments of paternity, specifically states that the court “shall” vacate an acknowledgment if it finds the alleged father, here, the biological father, is in fact not the biological father. To ask the court to continue hearing testimony on the allegations of fraud â€” as the petitioner and the law guardian do in their briefs â€” is in contravention of the plain language of Family Court Act Â§ 516-a (b). It is also asking this court to ignore indisputable scientific evidence and the parties’ own admissions. The Court said that acknowledgment of paternity is vacated and that the biological father herein will be issued an order of filiation.

The issue in this case is whether the petitioner, as a biological stranger, has standing to maintain his visitation petition.

Published on: December 11, 2012

Plaintiff Seeks Divorce on the Grounds of Abandonment

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this particular case is C. Lynn Elson and the respondent in the matter is Barry R. Elson. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division, Second Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. A New York Family Lawyer said the question that is put before the court in this case is the impact of an out of state divorce decree on the equitable distribution of the estate that is in the state of New York.

Case Background

The defendant husband in this action resided in the state of Colorado for two years. He pursued an action to obtain a divorce in the state of Colorado after this time. The decree for divorce is dated the 28th of December, 1979. This precludes the effective date of the Equitable Distribution Law of this state by seven months.

Published on: December 10, 2012

Plaintiff Did Not Take Property at the Time of Divorce so Gave Up Her Rights to It

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York. The appellant in this case is Ellen Corcoran, who is the executrix of the estate of John J. O’Connell, deceased. The respondent in this case is Maureen O’Connell.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the respondent, Maureen O’Connell was married to the appellant, the deceased John J. O’Connell in 1959. The couple had eight children during their marriage. Each of the children are now emancipated. The plaintiff moved out of the marital residence in 1982 and began a divorce proceeding in New York. This divorce procedure was based on inhuman and cruel treatment.

Published on: December 9, 2012

Plaintiff Gave Up Rights to Marital Property by Moving to Different State

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Special Term, located in Nassau County. The plaintiff in the case is Theresa Huber and the defendant in the case is Adolph Huber. Both the defendant and the plaintiff have moved for summary judgment.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties were married in the state of New York in 1946. In 1959, the plaintiff wife moved to Florida and established a residence there. On the 11th of May, 1960, the plaintiff wife was granted an absolute divorce in the state of Florida. The premises of the couple during their marriage was sought to be partitioned.

Published on: December 7, 2012

When Plaintiff Moved, Court Said She Gave Up Marital Property

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Special Term, located in Nassau County. The plaintiff in the case is Theresa Huber and the defendant in the case is Adolph Huber. Both the defendant and the plaintiff have moved for summary judgment.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties were married in the state of New York in 1946. In 1959, the plaintiff wife moved to Florida and established a residence there. On the 11th of May, 1960, the plaintiff wife was granted an absolute divorce in the state of Florida. The premises of the couple during their marriage was sought to be partitioned.

Published on: December 7, 2012

Court Hears Child Custody Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

The subject children are two minor boys, born November 26, 2001, and, born August 1, 2005. After the birth of the first child, the mother moved, with him, to Florida. Thereafter, by stipulation dated October 27, 2003, the parties agreed to joint legal and residential child custody until the first born child reached school age, at which point residential custody would revert to the mother on condition that she moved back to New York. Before the first born child reached school age, the parties reconciled, and resided together in Suffolk County, where the second child was born.

A New York Family Lawyer said that on April 2007, a Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that, the mother took both children from Centereach in Suffolk County to live with her mother in the Bronx, and filed petitions for sole child custody. The father filed cross petitions for sole child custody. In May 2007, an order of protection was entered upon consent, directing the father to stay away from the mother, her home, and her place of employment, except for visitation purposes. The parties agreed that the father would have visitation on alternate weekends. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted with respect to custody. It is clear from the evidence adduced at the hearing that both parties are loving parents and neither party is unfit. However, the record discloses certain troublesome facts about each of the parties. It is apparent that the relationship between the parties was a stormy one, and the father acknowledged that “everybody yells.”

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, the Family Court directed the mother to register the first born child in first grade in the Middle Country School District in Suffolk County, where he had attended kindergarten. However, when the mother changed her residence and place of employment to Queens, she enrolled the first borne child in school there, contrary to the direct order of the Family Court. At the custody hearing, the father’s neighbor testified that he had heard the father cursing, and observed visitors and noisy parties at the father’s house “at all hours of the night.” In August 2007 he observed police activity at the father’s house, and spoke to the police detectives. The father acknowledged that his house, owned by him and the mother jointly, was in foreclosure. Further, the father had a criminal record consisting of two felony convictions and one misdemeanor conviction from the 1990s. At the conclusion of the hearing, the children’s attorney noted that this was a difficult case since both parties were “clearly flawed,” but also had “strengths and good points.” However, she recommended that the children remain with the mother in the interest of stability, since the mother had had sole custody of them for seven months during the pendency of the proceedings, and the father’s house was in foreclosure.

Published on: December 6, 2012

Parties Dispute Grounds for Divorce

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a divorce proceeding being held in front of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Westchester County. The defendant in the matter is Thomas Hannigan and the plaintiff in the case is Barbara Hannigan.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff and the defendant are respectively 44 and 43 years old and have three children together. The children are 18, 13, and 11 years old. The couple was married on the fifteenth of June, 1985. The plaintiffs have begun this matrimonial action on the 20th of June, 2005. The main issue in this dispute is how the marital property of the couple is going to be distributed. The marital property includes a substantial amount of real property that they own as tenants by the entirety, the money that is located in a bank account that is only in the name of the plaintiff, and the value of the business owned by the defendant and the value of the plaintiff’s nursing degree and nursing license.

Published on: December 5, 2012

Plaintiff Seeks Annulment Because Husband is Still Married to Another

by Stephen Bilkis

Divorce 1

This is a case being heard in the Special and Trial Term of the Supreme Court located in New York County. The plaintiff in the matter is Ethel Phillips and the defendant is Gilbert L. Phillips. The plaintiff is seeking a separation from the defendant, who is her husband. Ms. Phillips alleges that the defendant has treated her cruelly and fails to provide fro her. The defendant denies these allegations and has entered a counterclaim seeking an annulment from the marriage. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant states that their marriage should be annulled because the plaintiff was still married to another individual at the time the couple was married.

Case Background

Published on: December 4, 2012

Court Decides if Father has Personal Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 6, 2010, Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) commenced the instant Family Court Act Article 10 abuse matter. A New York Family Lawyer said that, the Petition alleges the following: A personnel from the Police Department called in a report on November 24, 2010, alleging that the respondent father has been having sexual intercourse with the subject child now 13 years old, on a regular basis. The report further alleges that the most recent incident occurred during September of 2010. Further, the subject child’s mother learned of the sex abuse on November 24, 2010, when she found a nude photograph that the subject child had sent to the respondent father via cellular phone.

A New York Child Support Lawyer said that, the subject child stated to an ACS caseworker that the respondent father began having sexual intercourse with her when she was eleven years old. She further stated that the respondent father has had sexual intercourse with her on numerous occasions and he also has inserted his fingers into her vagina, performed oral sex on her and fondled her breasts. She also stated that the respondent father asked her to send him pictures of her vagina. Finally, the subject child also stated that the respondent father told her that their sexual relationship is their secret until the day they die.

When ACS first appeared on this matter, Petitioner indicated that Respondent Father lived in Georgia and was believed to have last been in New York in November 2010 during a Thanksgiving visit. ACS further noted that the mother and the children had relocated from Texas and had been living in New York since September 2010. The prior judge ordered personal service of the Summons and Petition on the Respondent Father, paroled the children to their mother under ACS supervision, and issued a Temporary Order of Protection against the Respondent Father on behalf of the Non-Respondent Mother and the Subject Children preventing the father from having any contact with the mother and children.

Published on: December 3, 2012

Court Terminates Parental Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On or about 8 June 2009, the Family Court of Bronx County issued an order which, among others, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to the subject child and committed his custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption. A New York Family Lawyer said in appeal to the said decision followed.

The Issues of the Case: