Articles Posted in Staten Island

A New York Family Lawyer said this is an action for divorce and ancillary relief wherein the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County entered on 19 August 2008. After a nonjury trial, plaintiff was directed to pay a monthly child support in the amount of $4,833.33, awarded him only one half of the defendant’s one-half-interest in the marital residence which she jointly owned with her mother, and only one half of the sum of $440,000, which the defendant transferred to the custodial accounts of the parties’ children without his permission, awarded the defendant 25% of the appreciated value of his two businesses, declined to award him a percentage of the defendant’s increased earnings, and declined to award him a 50% credit for unaccounted-for funds in the accounts held by the defendant jointly with her mother at Chase Bank, deposited from 14 October 1997, to 12 October 2001.

The court orders that the judgment is modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the fifth decretal paragraph thereof and by adding to the fifteenth decretal paragraph thereof, after the words “Memorandum Decision After Trial,” the phrase, “except that (i) the net value of the marital home which is available for equitable distribution is $549,876, and the husband is credited with the sum of $274,938, and (ii) the net value available for equitable distribution with respect to the children’s custodial accounts is $605,848, and the husband is credited with the sum of $302,924.

A New York Custody Lawyer said as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings.

Continue reading

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court that awarded the complainant wife an equal share of the net proceeds from the future sale of the marital residence and directed him to pay his wife $100 per week for her maintenance for a period of 10 consecutive years and $47.50 per week each child for the child support of each of the four infant children of the marriage. The said judgment also awarded the wife a one-third share of his net periodic retirement benefits accrued during the marriage and the sum of $2,204.18 as arrears owed by him pursuant to a previous court order. It also set forth a schedule for visitation of the parties’ children and awarded the wife $2,000 in counsel fees.

A New York Family Lawyer said the only marital assets of the parties were the marital residence and the defendant’s pension. In awarding the wife an equal share of the proceeds to be realized from the sale of the marital residence at the time the youngest child attains the age of 21 years or is sooner emancipated, Special Term effectuated the purpose and intent of equitable distribution. Although no testimony was presented as to the value of the defendant’s pension, Special Term properly awarded the wife a one-third share of that portion of the net periodic pension benefits attributable to employment during the marriage that the defendant will begin to receive at the time of his retirement. Since there were insufficient marital assets from which to derive a large lump-sum payment and various contingencies rendered the determination of present value difficult, this method of distribution was proper. However, because there was no evidence of when the defendant became a participant in his retirement plan, it was not possible to determine the length of time prior to the commencement of the divorce action that the defendant accumulated benefits.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court to determine the commencement date of the defendant’s participation in his pension plan. This will enable the trial court to calculate the fraction by which the wife’s one-third share should be multiplied to determine the amount of her entitlement. The numerator of this fraction shall be the number of months between the time of the beginning of the defendant’s participation in his pension plan and the commencement of the divorce action, while the denominator will consist of the total number of months during which the defendant accumulated benefits.

Continue reading

The children’s maternal grandmother, mistakenly relying upon an improperly executed last will signed by her daughter who had attempted to appoint the children’s paternal aunt as the children’s guardian.

A New York Family Lawyer said on the same day, the children’s paternal aunt and her mother advised a judge that they intended to take the children to their home in New York. The judge stated that, because no one else claimed for the custody of the children, he did not detect any objection to their plan. The court indicate the nature of the initial acquisition of the physical custody of the children by the children’s paternal aunt and her mother in order to emphasize that their conduct was not tainted by any unlawful or duplicitous act.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said as a result, three children left their home to live with their paternal aunt and grandmother in Nassau County after the death of their parents.

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff and defendant were previously divorced by Judgment granted in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. The parties have three children.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that in May of 1999, the defendant pled guilty to money laundering and securities fraud in connection with his direct involvement with a brokerage. In 2001, the defendant was subsequently charged with engaging in unlicensed telemarketing in Florida. In April of 2001, six months after executing a Marital Settlement Agreement, the defendant was imprisoned. In December of 2003, he was released under house arrest.

A Staten Island Child Custody Lawyer said pursuant to the provisions of a Stipulation and Order, the defendant was to pay the sum of $3,500 per month as and for child support for two (2) unemancipated children, in addition to the sum of $2,000 per month on account of arrears pursuant to the Stipulation and another Order for a total payment to the plaintiff of $5,500 per month. Additionally, the defendant was obligated to pay a penalty of 5% if payment was not made within ten (10) days of the due date.

Continue reading

It is reasonable for a patient to seek the independent advice of two experts before embarking on a course of treatment. Two experts may evaluate the same data and may arrive at different conclusions. But it is illogical for a patient to seek a second opinion immediately thereafter from the same expert who rendered the first opinion.

A New York Family Lawyer said tht primilarly in the Family Court where the same judge presides at the Huntley Hearing and the fact-finding hearing, it is illogical to re-litigate the same issues determined at the preliminary hearing by requiring that the testimony at the Huntley Hearing be repeated at the fact-finding hearing.

A Staten Island Family Lawyer said that nothing contained in this article, however, precludes a defendant from attempting to establish at a trial that evidence introduced by the people of a pre-trial statement made by him should be disregarded by the jury or other trier of the facts on the ground that such statement was involuntarily. Even though the issue of the admissibility of such evidence was not submitted to the court, or was determined adversely to the defendant upon motion, the defendant may adduce trial evidence and otherwise contend that the statement was involuntarily made. In a case of a jury trial, the court must submit such issue to the jury under instructions to disregard such evidence upon a finding that the statement was involuntarily made.

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for custody of the subject child, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated April 27, 1989, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that this proceeding involves a natural father’s effort to gain custody of his daughter born out of wedlock on July 31, 1988, from the respondent Nassau County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the Department) to whom the child has been entrusted since her birth pursuant to her natural parents’ consent. The subject child was born with a positive toxicology for cocaine and exhibiting withdrawal symptoms. Neglect proceedings were commenced against the natural mother based upon her admitted drug addiction. Although the petitioner was identified in the neglect petition as the infant’s father, he was not a named respondent. The natural mother eventually consented to a finding of neglect.

A Staten Island Family Lawyer said that, meanwhile, on August 5, 1988, only three days after he consented to the child’s temporary placement with the Department and five days after the child’s birth, the petitioner brought a proceeding for an order of filiation declaring him to be the child’s natural father and also sought custody. After an order of filiation was entered, the petitioner commenced the instant proceeding for custody of his daughter on September 8, 1988. Following a hearing at which the only witnesses were two caseworkers who were involved in the neglect proceedings initiated against the natural mother, the Family Court concluded, inter alia, that the father had failed to demonstrate that he would be a proper custodian for the infant and the child would be at risk in the petitioner’s custody. The court’s determination appeared premised primarily upon the father’s admission to the caseworkers that until several months prior to the child’s birth he was an occasional recreational user of cocaine and further upon the testimony of one of the caseworkers that the petitioner’s home was in need of repairs. Notably, the court’s decision was contrary to the recommendation of the Law Guardian appointed by the court to represent the child’s interest. This appeal ensued.

Continue reading

A York Family Lawyer said that, this proceeding was originated by the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of, filed in the Franklin County Clerk’s office on November 29, 2010. Petitioner, who is an inmate at the Bare Hill Correctional Facility, purported to challenge his continued incarceration in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services. More specifically, petitioner asserted an entitlement to 717 additional days of jail time credit. He further asserted that with the application of such additional credit the conditional release date of his 4-year determinate sentence would have been reached on September 11, 2010.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on December 9, 2010 and as a part thereof this proceeding was converted into a proceeding for judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR. An Amended Order to Show Cause was issued on April 12, 2011. The Court has since received a reviewed the Answer and Return of the respondent verified on May 27, 2011, supported by the Letter Memorandum of an Assistant Attorney General, dated May 27, 2011. The Court has also received and reviewed the Answer of the other respondent dated May 26, 2011, supported by the Memorandum of Law of the Deputy Nassau County Attorney, dated May 27, 2011. Finally, the Court has received and reviewed petitioner’s Reply to both sets of answering papers, filed in the Franklin County Clerk’s office on June 9, 2011.

A Staten Island Family Lawyer said that, on January 7, 2010 petitioner was sentenced in Supreme Court, Nassau County, as a second felony offender, to a controlling determinate term of 4 years, with 3 years post-release supervision, upon his convictions of the crimes of Criminal Sale of Controlled Substance 3° and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance 7. The offenses underlying such conviction s were apparently committed in January of 2007. Petitioner was received into DOCS custody on April 8, 2010, certified by the respondent as entitled to 397 days of jail time credit (Penal Law §70.30(3)). DOCS officials currently calculate the maximum expiration and conditional release dates of petitioner’s sentences as March 5, 2013 and August 7, 2012, respectively. Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to an additional 717 days of jail time credit covering the period he was under Nassau T. A. S. C. [Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime] supervision, which was court mandated pursuant to petitioner’s plea agreement.”