Custody

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 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 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

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

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 1, 2013

Court Decides if Someone Who Commits Adultery is Allowed to Obtain Legal Separation

by Stephen Bilkis

The Supreme Court located in New York County is overseeing this case involving the plaintiff Joy Silverman and the defendant Jeffrey Silverman. From the beginning, this case has been driven by two different concerns. A New York Family Lawyer said the husband wishes to have a divorce granted immediately without waiting for the final determination of the ancillary financial issues and the wife believes that the husband should not be allowed the divorce until a judgment settles all of the existing financial issues of the case.

Case Background

In August of 1994, the defendant, Jeffery Silverman served the plaintiff wife, Joy Silverman with papers commencing a divorce action in the state of Connecticut. The grounds for the divorce were irreconcilable differences. These grounds were unavailable to him in the state of New York.

Published on: January 1, 2013

Court Looks at Husband’s Drug Use in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the complainant Wife and the defendant Husband exchanged marital vows in an Orthodox Jewish ceremony in Nassau County. At the time of the marriage the parties were very young New York residents, the Wife was 18 years old and the Husband, 22. Although the Wife had two years of college education at the College for Women in New York City, the Husband merely finished high school. She stopped studying without obtaining a degree after the birth of their first child and three more followed. After the children were born, the Wife became a full time homemaker and parent. The parties raised their children adhering to the tenets of Orthodox Judaism and the children attended the former school of the Husband.

At the time of their marriage in August 1983, the Husband was a Jewish music producer and sole owner and employee of an Orchestra, which primarily booked bands for weddings and other special events. A New York Custody Lawyer said through the Orchestra and the use of professional production studios, the Husband also produced albums and recordings for some well-known Hasidic musical entertainers, both in New York and in Israel. The Husband initially maintained a business office in Queens, which later operated from the marital home. The Husband at some point sold the company name of the Orchestra, but continued in the same business, calling his company with another name. Throughout the marriage, the Husband remained the primary support for the household with these enterprises.

Upon the formation of the new company in or about 1985, the Husband’s income increased to the range of $100,000 to $125,000 per year. A Suffolk County Family Lawyer said this would later include the Husband’s income of $50,000 to $75,000 which is generated from his employment by the non-profit Jewish organization. From 1989 through 1996, the Husband’s primary function with the non-profit Jewish organization consisted of putting together an annual special concert in New York City’s Lincoln Center that raised major funds for the organization. The Husband testified that in one year during the early to mid 1990’s, he had occasion to earn $150,000 as a result of the fundraising concerts and his employment by the organization, although he never attained that income level again.

Published on: December 31, 2012

Court Reviews Personal Jurisdiction in Divorce Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an instant case being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County. The case involves legal malpractice claims made by the plaintiffs, Vladimira Koch, (Vladka),Michal Koch, and several video companies that Vladimira Koch holds ownership interests in. The claims are made against the defendants, who were former counsels that represented Vladimira Koch during her divorce preceding. The defendants include Sheresky, Aronson, & Mayefsky, LLP, David Aronson individually, Brager, Wexler, Eagel & Morgenstern, P.C., Raymond A. Brager individually, Ragues & Min, Esq., Raymond Ragues individually, D’Agostino & Salvi, LLP and Frank J. Salvi individually.

A New York Family Lawyer said the Brager, Salvi, and Aronson defendants have each filed a motion seeking dismissal of the complaints made against them on various grounds. In opposition to these motions the plaintiffs have filed a cross motion for an order to extend their time to complete the service of process.

Case Background

Published on: December 30, 2012

Plaintiff Sues Divorce Lawyer for Failure to Prosecute

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff, Marguerite Grucci has alleged a first cause of action for legal malpractice for failure to prosecute and a second cause of action for legal malpractice for failure to obtain a permanent order for protection and a third cause of action for a breach of contract against the defendants Gregory Rabinowitz and Kramer & Rabinowitz, LLC. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Suffolk County.

A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff has also entered a fourth cause of action in this case seeking damages for the delay in turning her file over to the new attorney that she obtained and for removing documents from the file and delaying the recommencement of her case. She states that the defendant deceitfully advised her that her grounds for divorce were not strong enough. She also alleges a cause of action regarding her loss of support and maintenance based on the defendant’s refusal to release the payments from escrow. The final cause of action made by the plaintiff accuses the defendant’s of excessive billing.

Plaintiff’s Case

Published on: December 29, 2012

Wife Claims She Owns Half of Husband’s Stock Proceeds

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Westchester County. Jose and Nerieda Rodriguez as the administrators of the estate of the deceased Janette Carlucci and Candice Carlucci are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant in the case is Iren Sepe. A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff have motioned for a declaration stating that they are entitled to 100% of the shares of stock of the Very Best IRTJ Corporation that is owned by Robert Sepe. The defendant’s have made a cross motion seeking a declaration that she has a superior right to half of the proceeds of the sale of the stock of the Very Best IRTJ Corporation.

Case Background

The defendant, Irene Sepe and her ex-husband Robert Sepe were divorced on the 16th of July, 2007. A stipulation of settlement was entered as part of the divorce. In this settlement Robert Sepe acknowledged that he was the sole owner of The Very Best IRTJ Corporation. The principal asset of the company is a commercial building that is located on Yorktown Road in Croton-on-Hudson. A New York Custody Lawyer said the stipulation of the divorce settlement states: