Articles Posted in Queens

Petitioner is the paternal grandfather of 2 infants. Respondent is the natural mother of the infants. The children’s father was killed in an accident.

A New York Family Lawyer said the paternal grandfather has petitioned this court for an order directing child visitation with the infants. An amended petition was filed thereafter. The natural mother has opposed the petition, having previously terminated visitation between the paternal grandfather and the children in June 1999.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, respondent’s attorney filed a motion for dismissal, relying upon the a ruling of the Court where the United States Supreme Court held that a State of Washington statute governing nonparental child visitation infringed on the fundamental right of a parent to make a decision about the care, custody and control of the parent’s child. The Court deemed this a violation of the parental substantive due process guarantee contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. In opposition, petitioner’s attorney has argued that said case should be limited to its facts, and the statute involved in that case was overly broad and is distinguishable from the New York statute.

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 8, 1996, as granted the motion of the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and, upon renewal, adhered to so much of a prior determination of the same court, dated August 14, 1995, as denied that branch of their motion which was to inspect certain records of the Family Court, Queens County.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, the defendant killed the plaintiffs’ son with a hammer and a knife and, as a result, was convicted in criminal court of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. Pursuant to CPL 330.25, the matter was removed to the Family Court, Queens County, for disposition, and the court adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent. The file of defendant’s criminal proceedings was sealed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs commenced an action to recover damages for wrongful death against defendant and for negligent entrustment of a dangerous weapon against the defendants’ parents.

Á Queens Family Lawyer said that, the plaintiffs moved for an order allowing them, inter alia, to inspect the Family Court file, after an in camera screening of the file by the Supreme Court to determine if information therein was relevant and material to the wrongful death action. The Supreme Court denied the motion. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted the motion of the respondents to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact that the respondents had negligently entrusted their son with the weapons used to kill the plaintiffs’ decedent. The court, upon granting the plaintiffs’ motion for renewal, also adhered to its prior determination denying access to the records of the Family Court.

Continue reading

In this child protective proceeding, a County Social Services/Child Protective Services, seeks adjudication that the subject child is a neglected child within the meaning of FCA (Family Court Advisory).

A New York Family Lawyer said that by petition, CPS (Child Protective Services) alleges that the mother has placed the child at imminent risk of becoming physically, mentally and emotionally impaired, in that the mother’s seriously impaired mental condition renders her unable to provide adequate guardianship, supervision and care to the child. CPS further alleges that the mother has failed to secure suitable housing for the child.

The mother was served with the summons and petition but did not appear on the first court date. At that time, an order was issued placing the child in the custody of maternal grandmother, and an order of protection was issued restricting the mother’s contact with the child to visitation supervised by the Department of Social Services.

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, which directed that the appellant be imprisoned for 48 days. By decision and order, the court dismissed the appeal as academic.

A New York Family Lawyer said that pursuant to the 1985 judgment entered in the parties’ divorce action, the father was obligated to pay $250 a week in child support for their four children, or $62.50 a week per child. In 1989, the father petitioned for a downward modification based on their oldest daughter’s emancipation and because the father then had custody of the parties’ oldest son. The mother petitioned for an increase in support. Following a hearing which was held over a period of almost one year, the Hearing Examiner issued an order, which obligated the father to pay child support of $400 a week for the two children, who remained in the mother’s custody, retroactive to July 1989. Beginning in January1991, daughter’s 21st birthday, the father was required to pay child support of $300 a week for the son. The Hearing Examiner concluded that the testimony of the father, a self-employed certified public accountant, regarding his finances was not credible and imputed income to him of $150,000 a year. A New York Custody Lawyer said that since the order was made retroactive to the date the petition was filed, substantial arrears had accumulated. In an order, the Family Court, Suffolk County denied the father’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order.

The father appealed from the order and that appeal was transferred to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Later, while the appeal was pending, the mother moved for an order to hold the father in contempt for his failure to pay support pursuant to the order. A Queens Family Lawyer said the father, by cross petition, sought a downward modification of support. The matter was heard by a different Hearing Examiner than the one who issued the order, who concluded that the father failed to comply with the support order, that his noncompliance was willful, and that his testimony as to his finances was incredible. At that point, the arrears totalled over $46,000. In May 1993, the Family Court confirmed the Hearing Examiner’s finding that the father’s failure to comply with the prior order was willful, found him in contempt, and sentenced him to 48 days in jail unless he purged his contempt by paying $24,000 towards the arrears. The father served the period of incarceration and was released in July 1993.

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said a couple obtained a divorced pursuant to a decision of the court. In addition, the condition also ordered that the father was obligated to keep and maintain hospital and medical insurance coverage, or better coverage, for the benefit of the children, as long as he is obligated to make child support payments. The decision further provided that the father shall claim his youngest child as an exemption on his personal income tax returns for income tax purposes as long as he complies with the terms of the condition.

Subsequently, a New York Child Custody Lawyer said a woman was appointed as the guardian of the father. Sources revealed that the need for a guardian was stemmed from injuries sustained by the father subsequent to the divorce action. The aforementioned order and decision authorized the establishment of a supplemental needs trust for the benefit of the father out of which certain expenses could be paid including child support, premiums for health insurance for the man’s children, life insurance premiums, medical expenses for the children and 1 1/2 of the annual college education costs at any state university.

The duties and obligations of the father owing to his former wife and his children, and his rights arising out of the divorce action, are defined by the condition of settlement. A Queens Family Lawyer in the mother’s application to modify those duties, obligations and rights by an expansion of the guardian’s powers, it is in effect seeking to have the court in the guardianship proceeding to modify the decision in the divorce action.

Continue reading

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 467(b), for enforcement of the alimony and child support provisions of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, the ex-husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, which rejected his objections to a Hearing Examiner’s order, which, inter alia, increased the amount of alimony and child support awarded in the judgment to the total amount of $250 per week.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the parties were married in November 1964. During the course of the marriage they had three children. The parties were divorced in 1979 pursuant to a judgment which incorporated but did not merge the terms of their stipulation of settlement.

The schedule indicates that it was the intention of the parties that the amount of money payable by the appellant ex-husband both for alimony and for child support was to decrease over time. A New York Custody Lawyer said the appellant, however, fell into arrears and in 1980 the respondent ex-wife obtained an enforcement order, and in 1981, a payroll deduction order, each in the total amount of $250 per week. The $25 reduction which was to occur in 1981 was never realized by the appellant as he took no action to challenge the 1980 enforcement order or the 1981 payroll deduction order.

Defendant and complainant are husband and wife. Immediately prior to his arrest, defendant and his wife were staying in separate cooperative apartments, each jointly owned by them, in the same apartment building in Manhattan. The larger of the two apartments was the couple’s marital home, while the smaller served as the wife’s office. As a consequence of severe marital conflict between them, the wife was temporarily sleeping in her office, but had access to the larger apartment during the day. The defendant husband continued to occupy and sleep in the larger apartment.

A New York Family Lawyer said that defendant was arrested and charged with Assault in the Third Degree, and with Harrasment, on the complaint of his wife. According to the complaint of Police Officer Graves, corroborated by the wife on the same day, defendant, with intent to cause physical injury and to harass and annoy his wife, had punched her in the face and knocked out one of her teeth. The alleged assault and harassment occurred after the wife had returned to sleep in the larger apartment and refused to let the husband in.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that at his arraignment, defendant was represented by counsel, and with the consent of the People was released on his own recognizance. At the arraignment, the People requested, and the court issued, a Temporary Order of protection, effective unless further extended by the court. No argument was heard, or testimony presented, either in support of or in opposition to the issuance of the TOP. The effect of this Temporary Order of protection was to exclude the defendant from both of the couple’s apartments, since one was arguably the complainant’s home and the other her office.

A proceeding was commenced pursuant to Criminal Procedure Laws and Rule (CPLR) to review a determination of the respondent Government Agency dated May 15, 1978 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency that the petitioner mother had willfully withheld information as to a change in income. A New York Family Lawyer said the determination is annulled, on the law, and the petition granted, without costs or disbursements.

The sole evidence in the record of willful withholding of information is the fact that the petitioner mother received a child support check and failed to report it to the respondent Government Agency. She had made no effort to conceal her child support rights. She executed an assignment of these rights to the Agency and appeared in court to press these rights prior to receipt of the check. Her un-contradicted testimony at the fair hearing was that she thought the check she received was the money remaining after the respondent Agency had taken what it was owed. This does not rise to the level of substantial evidence that she had willfully withheld information as to a change of income.

Moreover, a New York Custody Lawyer said the respondent Government Agency failed to notify the mother adequately of her duty to report changes in income. There was only a general certification signed by the mother at the time of her application for assistance. It did not contain any examples of what constituted changes in income nor is there any evidence that the mother was given verbal examples. Since she had not hidden her eligibility for child support and received the support check subsequent to her assignment of support rights, she had no reason to consider this a change in income.