Custody

Published on: June 18, 2014

Complainant Files Action to Direct Sale of Real Property

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said complainant seeks a decision compelling and directing the sale of a real property owned by a couple. The complainant states that they brought an action against the couple to recover $24,371.56. The attorney further states that a decision was duly entered in the action in favor of them for $24,371.56. The attorney also asserts that the decision was duly filed and docketed in the office of the clerk and a balance of $31,793.88, to wit the original judgment plus interest remains unpaid.

The attorney stated all of the complainant’s attempts to collect the amount due. The attorney also asserted that the couple is the current owner of the real property, exceeding $50,000.00 in value with an assessed value of approximately $350,000.00 based upon information and belief.

The woman states, in an opposing affirmation, that she is the current owner of the subject property. The affidavit of the woman makes clear that no real marriage exists. The woman’s attorney stated that the man abandoned the woman and their child. The man left the marital residence and never returned without leaving a forwarding address. The woman’s attorney points out that the family doesn’t know where the man resides and don’t even received any support from the man. Further, the man currently owes the woman over $17,000.00 in child support arrears. The woman’s attorney also points out that the woman has child support problems with another relationship, and additional details about the man’s posture as a judgment debtor.

Published on: June 16, 2014

Wife Petitions for Share of Marital Residence

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered August 5, 1981, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 29, 1987, as denied that branch of her cross motion which was for the appointment of a receiver pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 243, and the sequestration of the defendant husband’s equitable share of the net proceeds from the sale of the parties’ former marital residence, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as granted the plaintiff counsel fees in the sum of $1,500.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the parties were married on August 24, 1968. There is one child of their marriage, born on May 17, 1977. On August 5, 1981, a Nassau Divorce Lawyer said that the plaintiff was granted a judgment of divorce. The judgment provided, inter alia, that the plaintiff would receive custody of the parties’ minor child and exclusive possession of the former marital residence. Furthermore, the judgment directed the defendant to pay to the plaintiff $75 per week child support. As a result of several proceedings in the Family Court in which the defendant sought a downward modification of the divorce judgment’s support provision and the plaintiff moved for an order enforcing the defendant’s support obligations, the support provision was reduced to $100 biweekly, payable through the Nassau County Department of Social Services Support Obligations Unit.

A Staten Island Family Lawyer said that, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in an order dated February 18, 1986, directed that the former marital residence be sold and increased the defendant’s biweekly support payment to $160. In April 1986 the plaintiff moved for leave to enter judgment for support arrears and an order appointing her receiver and sequestrator of the defendant’s equitable interest in the former marital residence pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 243. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, by order dated May 7, 1986, awarded the plaintiff arrears but denied that branch of her motion which was for sequestration and the appointment of a receiver.

Published on: June 14, 2014

Petitioner Files Paternity Petition

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said a man filed a paternity petition requesting that an order be made declaring him to be the father of a child.

The man and the mother were present at the trial and the documents reflect that the court already noted the paternity of the child. An acknowledgment was then produced which declared that another man was the father of the child. The court then appointed a law guardian to represent the child.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the other man stated that he raised the child for six years and the child calls him papa. The mother also told the child that he was his father.

Published on: June 13, 2014

Court Orders Respondent to Submit DNA for Paternity Testing

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the matter before the Court is a motion brought by the Deputy Court Attorney’s Office, on behalf of the Nassau County Department of Social Services (DSS), seeking to have the Court direct the respondent to submit to DNA testing for the purpose of establishing paternity of the child. Both the respondent and law guardian submitted opposition papers invoking the doctrine of equitable estoppel, arguing that the child has an intact father-child relationship with another individual. The Deputy County Attorney then submitted reply papers, arguing neither the law guardian nor respondent have established that the child would be irreparably harmed if DNA testing was ordered.

A Nassau County Child support Attorney said that this matter was initiated when DSS filed a petition for paternity and support against respondent. The Presiding Magistrate referred the matter to the Court once the issue of equitable estoppel was raised.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be used in a variety of family law matters including custody, visitation, support and, as here, paternity. Regardless of whether it is being used in an offensive posture to enforce rights or a defensive posture to prevent rights from being enforced, it is only to be used to protect the best interests of the child or children involved. Herein, the respondent and law guardian seek to invoke the doctrine in an defensive posture, seeking to prevent respondent from having to take a DNA test.

Published on: June 12, 2014

Petitioner Seeks Increase of Child Support Payments

by Stephen Bilkis

A York Family Lawyer said this is an action to recover the value of legal services provided to plaintiff’s client in connection with support proceedings wherein defendant was the named respondent. This matter appears before this Court upon the following stipulated facts.

A Nassau County Family Attorney said that in May 1969, the defendant and his former wife entered into a separation agreement which provided for the support of the parties’ children. By Mexican decree, the defendant and his former wife were divorced. Said decree incorporated the aforementioned separation agreement.

In January 1977, defendant’s former wife commenced a proceeding in the Family Court, Nassau County, seeking an increase in child support payments on behalf of the defendant’s children.

Published on: June 11, 2014

Wife Appeals Denial for Child Support Arrears

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied her motion for leave to enter a judgment for child support arrears.

A Nassau County Family attorney said that the plaintiff and the defendant were married in Glendale, New York in 1959. They separated in 1980 when the defendant moved to California, and were divorced by a 1982 judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which awarded custody of the parties’ unemancipated children to the plaintiff. The 1982 judgment was subsequently amended by a judgment, which required the defendant to pay child support in the sum of $50 per week for each unemancipated child.

A New York Custody Lawyer said in 1985 the plaintiff commenced a proceeding in the Nassau County Family Court pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 3-A, the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (hereinafter USDL), seeking an increase in support for the parties’ two youngest sons. The proceeding was thereafter transferred to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and thereafter, that court issued an order directing the defendant to make increased support payments of $300 per month per child until the children reached the age of 18, which is the age of emancipation under California law. When the children reached the age of 18 six months later, the California court terminated the defendant’s obligation to make support payments on his behalf through the court trustee. After the youngest son reached the age of 18 in 1988, the California court trustee administratively closed its case.

Published on: June 10, 2014

Plaintiff Brings Suit for Counsel Fees

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said this is an action to recover the value of legal services provided to plaintiff’s client in connection with support proceedings wherein defendant was the named respondent. This matter appears before this Court upon the following stipulated facts.

A Staten Island Family Lawyer said that in May 1969, the defendant and his former wife entered into a separation agreement which provided for the support of the parties’ children. By Mexican decree, the defendant and his former wife were divorced. Said decree incorporated the aforementioned separation agreement.

In January 1977, defendant’s former wife commenced a proceeding in the Family Court, Nassau County, seeking an increase in child support payments on behalf of the defendant’s children.

Published on: June 9, 2014

Paintiff Requests Order Removing Spouse from the Home

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in an action for divorce, plaintiff wife has made two applications for orders directing defendant 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 Child Custody Lawyer said 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 Court in Nassau County for determination. An inquiry to the Nassau County Family Court confirmed that information. Since the motions concerned ‘relief associated with the Family Court proceeding’, the Court referred them to that Court for hearing and determination. Then the applications were referred back to the Family Court in Suffolk County. In June 1971, a Judge of that Court, after a discussion with counsel, returned the matters to the Court for determination. The Court have received and carefully reviewed the transcript of the remarks made on that occasion.

A Long Island Family Lawyer said that referral of these motions was not made without authority nor was it intended to enlarge the Family Court’s jurisdiction. That Court has original jurisdiction over support proceedings and the applications for support and custody in matrimonial actions referred to it by this Court. The Family Court Act, recognizing the obvious, i.e., that a husband is chargeable with the support of his wife and a father is obligated to support his children, authorized the Family Court to require him to provide for their support as that court might determine. Furthermore, the Family Court may make an allowance for counsel fees in proceedings seeking support for the wife and children. In actions for divorce, separation or annulment, the Supreme Court on its own motion may refer to the Family Court applications for temporary support or temporary or permanent custody.

Published on: June 8, 2014

Wife Motion for Contempt of Court Against Husband

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff (“Wife”) moves by Order to Show Cause seeking an Order a) holding Defendant (“Husband”) in contempt of Court for his willful failure to comply with the Judgment of Divorce entered in this action, and for his willful refusal to comply with the Judgment of this Court to pay the sum of $43,351.87, together with interest thereon in the sum of $6,394.40, and for the failure to comply with the terms of the So-Ordered Stipulation of the parties; and b) fining and/or imprisoning Husband for such contempt.

A New York Custody lawyer said that the parties were married on November 20, 1987, and there are three children of the marriage. The parties’ marriage was dissolved pursuant to the Judgment of Divorce, which incorporated but did not merge with a Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) which states in pertinent part that: The Husband shall pay to the Wife, as and for child support, the sum of $1,785.0 per month. The parties agree that the child support payments will be made through the Nassau County Support Collection Unit.

Pursuant to the Order of the Judge, the Court ordered pendente lite relief awarding to the Wife the sum of $1,400.00 per month temporary maintenance, as well as child support in the sum of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars per month. The award was retroactive to the date of service, which was July 18, 2006.

Published on: June 7, 2014

Wife Files a Motion for Upward Modification of Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in a condition of settlement incorporated but not merged into the decision of divorce, a couple agreed to waive their right to fix the support of their child under the standards act for some period, during which time the father, a licensed urologist who was attending law school, would make no payments to the mother for the support of their child. The condition further stated that the husband agrees to pay the wife the support of the child pursuant to the act based upon his earnings at the time. Subsequently, in an order, the father was directed to pay the child support to the mother in the amount of eight hundred eighteen dollars, twice per month, which was based upon the father’s salary that was one hundred twenty five thousand dollars per year as a first year associate in a law firm.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the mother then initiated a proceeding for an upward modification, alleging that the father was now employed as an urologist earning approximately three hundred fifty thousand dollars per year. But, upon dismissal of the proceeding on the ground that the mother failed to state a reason for action for modification, the mother filed objections to the family court, but some of which were denied.

Subsequently, the mother filed an appeal from an order of the family court which denied her objections to so much of three orders of the same court, as denied her cross motion to limit the issues with regard’s the father’s income, granted the branch of the father’s motion which was to dismiss the proceeding for failure to state a reason for action, and dismissed the proceeding.