Articles Posted in Queens

This case is being heard in the New York Supreme Court located in Kings County. The plaintiff in the case is Elizabeth Benson Weiss and the defendant in the case is Bruce Weiss. The defendant/husband, Bruce Weiss has moved for an order to dismiss the complaint that has been made against him by the plaintiff/wife, Elizabeth Benson Weiss. The defendant basis his argument for dismissal on the fact that the lack of jurisdiction by the court. Alternatively, the defendant wishes to have the venue of this case moved to the Family Division, District Court located in Clark County, Nevada.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the couple was married in 1986 in New York, New York. The couple lived in Brooklyn, New York for their entire marriage. The couple states that they physically separated a few years ago. The couple has one child, a daughter named Jessica.

Continue reading

This case is being heard in the Special Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County. The plaintiff in the case is Sidney Wechter and the defendant in the case is Florence Wechter. The plaintiff husband is seeking a divorce and the defendant wife is seeking an order to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action in the matter.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the couple was married in the state of New York in 1952. They have two children together, Paula who is over the age of 21 and Glenda who is 14 years old. The couple has a history of marital strife since the marriage began. Around the year 1967, the plaintiff husband left the defendant and went to Mexico. While in Mexico he obtained a unilateral divorce. Based on this divorce the plaintiff remarried a few years ago and is currently living with his “new” wife. The plaintiff is not relying on this divorce for this instant proceeding.

Continue reading

This case is taking place in the Special Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Nassau County. A New York Family Lawyer said the application to the court is being made by the petitioner, Marlene Kraham. The respondent in this case is Harvey Harris Kraham. The matter being heard in the court questions whether a decree of divorce in Haiti is recognized in the state of New York. Generally, divorces that are obtained in foreign courts are entitled to recognition based on comity unless the decree has offended the public policies of the state of New York.

Case Description

The matter that is being heard in this court involves an application for a separation agreement to be amended, thus requiring the court to change a decree of divorce that was made in a Haitian court.

Continue reading

Annette Lavi is the respondent in this case and the appellant is Houshang Lavi. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. The Special Term Court determined that in this particular case the Equitable Distribution Law allowed interim maintenance to be granted.

This case is quite unusual. The history of the couple begins when they were married on the 20th of December, 1968 in Queens County, New York. In July of 1969, the couple traveled to Juarez, Mexico. At this time the couple went before a Judge in the First Civil Court located in the Bravos District and the wife petitioned for a divorce. A New York Criminal Lawyer said this petition was granted and declared inter alia that the marriage between the couple that took place on the 20th of December, 1968 in New York was dissolved. This decree gave each party the right to remarry at their discretion.

The plaintiff was the one who initiated the divorce proceedings in Mexico. However, she states that she was fooled into doing so by the defendant. According to the plaintiff the defendant informed her in the beginning of 1969 that his feelings for her were gone because she was his and that if she was no longer his and they were no longer married that his feelings of love for her would come back. A New York Custody Lawyer said the plaintiff further states that the defendant told her that if they were divorced in Mexico that they could return to New York and continue to live together. She states that he said once his feelings of love returned that they would remarry.

Continue reading

This case raises the issue of the legal implications of the reservation of rights in surrender instruments executed by natural parents in accordance with the terms of Social Services Law § 383-c vis-a-vis the long-standing policy of this State that in an adoption the natural parent “shall have no rights over such adoptive child” (Domestic Relations Law § 117[1][a]. A New York Family Lawyer said the subject child was born September 15, 1989 and was placed in foster care in January 1991 after a finding of neglect. The child’s mother was convicted of manslaughter in 1991 for the death of the subject child’s brother and sentenced to six to eighteen years imprisonment. In June 1991, the agency placed the child with petitioner, his maternal great-aunt, where he has since resided continuously. The child has bonded with petitioner and her two daughters. Petitioner has maintained a relationship with the child’s mother and has taken him to the correctional institution for visitation. Petitioner desires to adopt the child. The agency discussed such adoption with the mother in developing the child’s permanent plan. On November 18, 1992, before the Judge of a Family Court, New York County, a Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that the mother surrendered the child for adoption, specifically solely by petitioner, pursuant to Social Services Law § 383-c. The surrender order further provides that the mother shall have such visits with the child after adoption as agreed to between the mother and petitioner. The child’s father executed a surrender on February 11, 1993 on the same terms and conditions.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, the adoption petition and support papers were executed by petitioner and the proceeding, supported by the agency, was initiated in the Bronx, petitioner’s county of residence. Petitioner also requested that the child retain his biological mother’s surname as that is the name by which he is known and identifies himself. A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, the court thereafter requested further information which was submitted. Petitioner and counsel appeared, and when questioned, counsel stated that there was nothing to be changed or modified in the papers, but if the court wanted anything, counsel would address it. The court dismissed the petition without a hearing.

The issue in this case is whether the biological parents of the subject child, after surrendering the child for adoption, retained its right over the child.

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading