Custody

Published on: March 22, 2016

Father Seeks Specifics on Custody Order

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner and respondent are the parents of a nine (9) year old child. The parties obtained a judgment of divorce in New Jersey on June 13, 2003 and, on consent, were awarded an order of joint legal custody for the child.

The father filed a violation petition and a petition for modification of the custody order on April 25, 2007. The father was seeking a specific and expanded visitation schedule. By stipulation the parties resolved the visitation issues between them prior to trial.

The mother had filed a petition to modify the custody order to provide for sole legal custody of the child on May 6, 2008. A trial was conducted in Kings County Family Court for the sole purpose of determining whether the existing order of joint legal custody should be modified to award sole legal custody to the mother.

Published on: March 18, 2016

Court Decides if Attorney Should be Removed from Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and This court is called upon to determine (1) whether the attorney for the defendant’s application to be relieved as attorney of record should be granted; (2) if the defendant’s applications brought pro se while still represented by counsel are properly before the court; (3) whether or not the defendant is entitled to a 30 day stay of all proceedings in the event counsel is relieved pursuant to CPLR 321(c); (4) whether or not the defendant is entitled to a second court appointed counsel pursuant to Judiciary Law section 35(8)(b) on the issues of child custody, visitation and an order of protection; (5) whether or not the defendant should have the benefit of a court assigned interpreter; (6) the sua sponte sealing of photographs of the child’s genitalia and buttocks which were annexed exhibits to defendant’s order to show cause.

The defendant is presently represented by an attorney of her own choosing. Defendant’s counsel moved by order to show caused dated November 5, 2010, to be relieved. The counsel seeks to be relieved as the attorney of record based upon an irretrievable breakdown in the attorney client relationship. The defendant submits in her most recent application disparaging statements about him and his representation of her. In open court, on November 17, 2010, defendant stated she wished to discharge his attorney and asked for the appointment of counsel pursuant to Judiciary Law section 35(8)(b).

The said counsel is defendant’s third attorney of record. Previously, defendant was represented by pro bono counsel, a New York City law firm. On March 10, 2010, a consent to change attorney was filed and the defendant was substituted as attorney pro se. On May 5, 2010, an attorney was appointed by the court as the attorney for the defendant pursuant to the Judiciary Law on the issues of child custody, visitation and an order of protection. Although not initially disclosed to the court by defendant, this attorney simultaneously represented defendant in Family Court. On August 10, 2010, defendant was again substituted pro se for this attorney on consent. The attorney had moved by order to show cause, dated August 13, 2010, to be relieved. That application was rendered moot based upon the pro se substitution and the fact that defendant already retained private counsel to wit: the counsel unbeknownst to the court assigned attorney. After having discharged the court appointed counsel and hired private counsel, defendant seeks to now have the court appoint her another attorney. The counsel represented the defendant in an all-day temporary custody hearing on October 7, 2010, before this court. The court after the hearing awarded temporary custody of the infant issue to the father. He is the more stable parent, at the present time, for the care of the child. As a result of the hearing the court believes that plaintiff was a victim of domestic violence; on one occasion he sought medical assistance at an emergency room. Apparently, shortly before that hearing, defendant appeared in the Family Court, Queens County, pro se, and obtained an ex parte temporary order of protection against plaintiff. That petition indicated that there were “no prior applications” for an order of protection notwithstanding the present application in this matrimonial action or the two (2) prior Kings County Family Court applications for orders of protection which were withdrawn on the record in open court after consolidation on consent. Upon disclosure to this court of the defendant’s application in Queens County, this court from the bench contacted the Referee from Queens Family Court who indicated she has no knowledge of an existing matrimonial action. This court informed counsel and the parties’ of this on the record in open Court. Upon written application, this court, ex parte, granted consolidation of the Queens Family Court matter and ordered a hearing on November 17, 2010. That hearing was adjourned so the counsel could make the present application to be relieved because of defendant’s alleged actions and alleged failure to cooperate with him. Defendant also brought on two (2) orders to show cause pro se while still being represented by counsel and not informing him of her intent to do so. On November 22, 2010, defendant submitted an application for poor person status and filed a third pro se order to show cause.

Published on: February 19, 2016

Mother Revokes her Consent to Adoption

by Stephen Bilkis

The mother of the infant in this adoption proceeding commenced a writ of habeas corpus in Nassau County Supreme Court by a petition dated May 10, 1976 and returnable May 26, 1976. The Supreme Court, on the consent of all parties, treated the habeas corpus as an application by the mother to revoke her consent to the adoption of the child and referred the entire matter to this court where all prior proceedings had occurred and where adoption proceedings were then pending. The decision also directed the mother to serve a supplemental verified petition setting forth in detail ‘the basis upon which she claims she was unduly influenced and pressured to give her consent to the adoption.’

In early 1975, the mother, then almost 21 years old and a college student in Florida, became pregnant by an unidentified person other than her present husband, also a college student in Florida, whom she married in August of 1975. In July of that year, in anticipation of her marriage, she first sought an abortion but was informed that her pregnancy had progressed too far. She admitted that her husband would not have married her unless she had agreed to surrender the child for adoption since he did not wish to care for a child not his own and she agreed it was unfair to impose this upon him.

He was referred to an attorney in Miami, Florida and, through him, put in contact with a New York attorney who has represented the adoptive parents in this proceeding. On November 15, 1975, she flew to New York and was met at the airport by a nurse’s aide and housekeeper known to the adoptive parents but who told her she was acting on behalf of the New York attorney. She remained at the housekeeper’s home in Brooklyn until November 26 when the infant was born. During her first meeting with the New York attorney, she expressed at least two motives for proceeding with the adoption–her desire to devote more time to college and her fear of being unable to care for the child because of her relative youth.

Published on: February 14, 2016

Court Discusses Religious Preferences in Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This action is based on allegations that the autopsy performed on the body of claimant’s son and a State prison inmate at the time of his death, was performed in violation of Public Health Law § 4210-c, a statute protecting those who have religious objections to autopsy or dissection. Defendant contends that the autopsy was required by County Law § 674(5) and that, in any event, the State cannot be held responsible for the procedure because it was performed by county officials.

In 1983, an inmate in the State prison system, was diagnosed as suffering from AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). Approximately two years later, he became seriously ill with an AIDS-related infection and, on December 10, 1985, was transferred from Greene Correctional Facility to Greene County Memorial Hospital. He died in the hospital shortly after midnight on December 22.

The inmate’s family was notified of his death at approximately 1:00 a.m. on the morning of December 22 by a telephone call from his treating physician. Claimant testified at trial that, after informing her of her son’s death, the physician asked if he could perform an autopsy. She said that she told him “No, according to the Jewish religion you’re not supposed to perform an autopsy.” The physician called again at approximately 8:00 a.m. and asked a second time if an autopsy could be performed. Claimant testified that she responded, “I told you that hours before, that you cannot perform an autopsy to a Jewish person–and he was religious.”

Published on: January 7, 2016

Plaintiff Moves for Motion to Dismiss for Failure to File Timely Complaint

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant moves by order to show cause for the following relief: for an order pursuant to CPLR §§ 327 and 3012(b) as follows: a) granting defendant dismissal of this action by virtue of the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve a complaint; b) granting defendant a dismissal of this action on the ground that this court does not have jurisdiction over his person which has not resided in New York since 1999; c) granting defendant a dismissal of this action on the ground of forum non conveniens in light of the Brazilian action pending since 2002; d) in the alternative, granting defendant a stay of these proceedings pending completion of the 2002 Brazilian action.

In this matrimonial action, the defendant is a Brazilian citizen while plaintiff enjoys dual citizenship with the United States and Brazil. The parties met in 1988 when plaintiff was visiting a friend in Brazil. Thereafter, defendant decided to move to New York to be with plaintiff and the parties were married in a civil ceremony in the state of New York on February 27, 1989.

Published on: January 6, 2016

Court Decides How Certain Taxes Should Be Paid

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 28, 1992, executed a will that made specific bequests to his wife, son and other family members. The will also left $16,500 to three charities and created a trust for the benefit of his wife and son. On December 17, 1997, the testator executed a trust that, at the time of his death, made pre-residuary distributions to family members and left $16,500 to the same three charities. The residuary went into a marital trust for Ruth. It is claimed that at this time the testator had assets of approximately $10,000,000.

On April 6, 2001, the testator created a second trust that included pre-residuary dispositions to his son and a marital trust for his wife. Upon her death, the greater of $15,000,000 or 25% of the trust principal would go to his son, with the remainder to two charitable lead trusts (CLTs) for the benefit of WCA Hospital, Jamestown Community College, and five public libraries. At that time, the testator was worth approximately $19,000,000.

Published on: January 4, 2016

Plaintiff Brings Motion to Dismiss Initial Complaint

by Stephen Bilkis

The motion of the defendants, RM and KM, by counsel, to dismiss the Summons & Information before the Court is determined as hereinafter provided.

The defendants, RM and KM, are the owners in fee of a residential home located at 88 Liberty Boulevard, within the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream, also known on the tax map of the County of Nassau as Section 37, Block 400, Lots 39 and 40. They are charged with failure to provide permits or certificates for a kitchen situated on the second floor of the premises, to wit: No Certificate of Occupancy for the two-family dwelling, violation of Sections 3211 and 3206 of the Village Zoning Code. The area is zoned for one-family dwellings or “R-1 Zone.”

Published on: October 11, 2015

Court Looks at Issue Regarding Personal Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding for support pursuant to Article 4 of the Family Court Act. The clerk of the court mailed a summons to the respondent, directing him to appear for a hearing. No attempt at personal or substituted service was made prior to the mailing of the summons. The respondent has appeared specially and moved, pursuant to Section 3211(a) (8) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, to dismiss the petition on the ground that service by mail in the first instance does not comply with the requirements of Section 427 of the Family Court Act and, therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.

Section 427 provides as follows: ‘(a) Service of a summons and petition shall be made by delivery of a true copy thereof to the person summoned at least three days before the time stated therein for appearance. If so requested by the respondent or by a parent or other person legally responsible for his care, the court shall not proceed with the hearing or proceeding earlier than seven days after such service. (b) If after reasonable effort, personal service is not made, the court may at any stage in the proceedings make an order providing for substituted service in the manner provided for substituted service in civil process in courts of record. (c) In a proper case, service of a summons and petition under this section may be effected by mail.’

A reading of Section 427 clearly indicates that service is to be made personally, and only upon failure to effect the same is substituted service in the manner provided for substituted service in civil process in courts of record’ to be allowed.

Published on: October 11, 2015

Petitioner Challenges NY Financing Methods of Public Schools

by Stephen Bilkis

Within the framework of this litigation are found dual challenges to New York’s method of financing elementary and secondary public school education. Proceeding upon separate but related theories, two groups of plaintiffs each seek a judgment declaring that such method of educational financing violates provisions of the federal and state constitutions. The group of plaintiffs responsible for instituting the action as it was originally constituted is, for the sake of clarity and convenience, referred to as the “Original Plaintiffs.” This group is comprised of 27 school districts situated in 13 counties and 12 school children, represented by their parents or guardians, who are students in public elementary or secondary schools operated by 7 of the plaintiff school districts.

After an action had been instituted by the original plaintiffs, a second group of plaintiffs sought and was granted the right to intervene in that action. That group is referred to as the “Plaintiffs-Intervenors” and sometimes as the “Intervenors.” It includes the Boards of Education of the cities of New York, Rochester, Buffalo and Syracuse; the City of New York itself; certain officials of the so-called “Big Four” cities; the United Parents Associations of New York, Inc.; and 12 school children, represented by their parents or guardians, who are students in public schools operated by the named city school districts. The Board of Education of the City of Buffalo was included as one of the original plaintiffs and thus is a member of both groups of plaintiffs.

Published on: October 9, 2015

Petitioner Seeks Resolution Regardng Time Table for Election Law Cases

by Stephen Bilkis

It is well recognized that the time table for Election Law cases is extremely tight. Election proceedings have a preference over civil and criminal matters and thus the rules with regard to service are modified to reflect a method of service reasonably calculated to complete service in a timely fashion, but once ordered by the Court there must be strict compliance. In the instant proceeding, an ex-parte application was made to the Special II Justice for “So Ordered” subpoenas to be served on the witnesses and subscribing witnesses to the Respondent Petition, Volume 1, so that Petitioner could proceed with the case on the return date of the Order to Show Cause. Numerous people appeared pursuant to the subpoenas, however they reported to the courtroom of Justice also on the fourth floor, presumably because he had signed the subpoenas. The undersigned’s name appeared below the index number on the subpoena, however Justice’s part clerk apparently mistook the subpoenas as returnable in that part because another election law case is pending there. A call was made by someone in that part to Johnson’s counsel’s office rather than Petitioner’s and the people were told they were free to leave without ever having been referred to the undersigned’s part for the hearing. Both counsels were present before the undersigned during that morning, as the Order to Show Cause was returnable at 9:30 a.m., in this part.

It is conceded that respondent’s counsel brought those responding to the subpoena into a conference room to speak with them. An intern associated with Petitioner’s counsel was present, though no witness testified that he said or did anything. Respondent’s counsel admittedly unilaterally dismissed the people who answered the subpoena, without leave of the Court or authorization from Petitioner’s counsel.

On the record, respondent’s counsel advised the Court that he spoke to four people with regard to the subpoenas. He indicated that they showed him the subpoenas and he advised them that he “would make a motion to quash if they like and represent them for the purpose of the motion to quash because they were clearly not served properly.” At the time he was unaware of the Court Order setting forth the manner in which the subpoenas were to be served.