Staten Island

Published on: December 19, 2013

Wife Seeks Sanctions Against Husband for Frivolous Behavior

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Familly Lawyer said the couple was married and has seven children, one of whom is emancipated. The respondent husband, a physician, incorporated his successful plastic surgery practice as a subchapter corporation, for which he is the sole shareholder. The couple separated and a temporary order of custody was issued in Family Court by which they were to spend equal amounts of time with each of their children, and petitioner wife petitioned for child and spousal support. In April 1999, Family Court issued a temporary support order requiring the husband to pay—on a monthly basis—child support of $10,000 and spousal support of $1,000.

In May 1999, the wife filed for divorce and all issues regarding child support were consolidated in Supreme Court. Subsequently, the husband successfully moved to dismiss the divorce action. However, in its dismissal order the court also granted, among other things, a money judgment against the husband for arrearages in child and spousal support, continued the temporary support order and referred matters regarding child support back to Family Court. A New York Custody Lawyer said that on the husband’s appeal of those latter portions of the dismissal order, the Court left intact the husband’s obligations under the temporary support order including arrearages, and referred final issues of child support to Family Court.

In January 2004, a hearing was commenced in Family Court on the child support issues, resulting in an order by the Support Magistrate which, based on the disparate incomes of the parties, required the husband to pay 80% of all of the children’s expenses and required the wife to pay 20%. The Support Magistrate also ordered the husband to pay monthly child support of $4,491 and monthly spousal support of $1,500, and denied the requests of both parties for counsel fees; finding that the husband’s violation of the temporary support order was not willful, the court denied the wife’s petition to hold him in contempt. Both parties then filed objections to the Support Magistrate’s order, although only the wife specifically objected to the denial of counsel fees.

Published on: October 28, 2013

Court Discusses Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the court has before it the petitioner’s objections to the order of Support Magistrate, dated March 7, 2007, dismissing the petition filed herein. A New York Child Support Lawyer said that, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (Family Court Act Article 5-B), the petitioner (a resident of Canada), commenced this proceeding by filing a petition seeking the establishment of an order of paternity and child support. The petition alleged that the parties were engaged in a same-sex relationship between August 1989 and January 1995. During their relationship, the parties made plans to conceive and raise a child together. In December 1993, the petitioner became impregnated via artificial insemination. On September 20, 1994, the petitioner gave birth to a child.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that shortly after the birth of the child the parties’ relationship ended and petitioner, along with the child moved to Montreal, Canada. Petitioner claims that despite her requests, the respondent has not provided any support for the child. Petitioner seeks a declaration of parentage and an order of child support retroactive to the date of the birth of the child.

A New York Order of Protection Lawyer said that, on March 6, 2007, the parties appeared before Support Magistrate. Petitioner appeared via telephone, respondent personally and with counsel. Prior to conducting a hearing, upon oral application by counsel for respondent, the Support Magistrate dismissed the petition, finding that under the facts of the case and the laws of the State of New York, the court could not grant an order of filiation. The question of the appropriate amount of child support was never reached.

Published on: September 28, 2013

Court Relieves Law Guardian from their Duties

by Stephen Bilkis

In this Order of protection case, the Law Guardian was relieved and new counsel assigned to represent the child’s interests. Respondent mother’s counsel asserts that during the fact-finding hearing, while the caseworker for the Administration for Children’s Services was testifying, the Law Guardian read a People/Us magazine under her desk and text messages on her cell phone. A New York Family Lawyer said that in addition, counsel for respondent mother notes that the Law Guardian asked the caseworker no questions during cross-examination. According to counsel for respondent mother, “the last straw” was during an off-the-record bench conference, when the Law Guardian stated her support for the agency’s position. At that point, counsel contends that he became very upset, because the Law Guardian appeared to fail to pay attention to the testimony during the trial, yet took a position against his client.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that the motion is opposed by the Law Guardian. She emphatically denies that she was reading a magazine, although she admits that there was one on her desk. She also denies that she was reading text messages asserting, “there is no cell phone service in the court.” The Law Guardian asserts that she has diligently represented her now five-year-old client’s interests. Specifically, she asserts that she met with her client twice, conducted an extensive and thorough investigation and made a determination to advocate for a resolution that she believed to be in the child’s best interests. She asserts that although she did not wish to cross-examine the caseworker, she was paying very close attention and is knowledgeable about all of the facts and circumstances at issue in this case.

Counsel for respondent maternal great-grandmother has submitted an affirmation which essentially supports the observations of respondent mother’s counsel about the Law Guardian’s actions, although he takes no position in support of, or opposition to, the motion. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said after having carefully considered the papers submitted, the Court finds the affirmation submitted by respondent mother’s counsel devoid of viable evidence indicating any bias on the part of the Law Guardian, ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to diligently represent the child’s interests or other recognized grounds for disqualification. The motion is denied.

Published on: September 17, 2013

Court Discusses Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action for divorce, a New York Family Lawyer said the wife has made two applications for orders directing her husband to leave their marital home, to provide support and maintenance for her and to restrain him from removing furnishings, furniture and personal possessions from the residence.

When the motions were originally submitted, the court discovered that an application for an order of protection was being sent to the court for determination. An inquiry to the court confirmed the said information. In view of the fact that the actions concerned relief associated with the family court proceeding, the court referred them to the family court for hearing and decision.

Based on records, referral of the motions was not made without authority nor was it intended to enlarge the court’s jurisdiction. The family court has original jurisdiction over support proceedings and the applications for support and custody in matrimonial matters.

Published on: September 13, 2013

Defendant Appeals Order for Retroactive Child Support and Counsel Fees

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, in which the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in open court, the complainant appeals from an amended order of the Supreme Court which awarded the defendant counsel fees in the sum of $15,000 and directed that he pay retroactive child support in the sum of $24,199.20 and arrears of his pro rata share of certain child care expenses in the sum of $1,666.

A New York Family Lawyer said the amended order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof directing that the complainant pay retroactive child support in the sum of $24,199.20, and substituting therefore a provision directing that the complainant pay retroactive child support in the sum of $13,225.40; as so modified, the amended order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for the entry of an appropriate second amended order in accordance herewith.

An award of counsel fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the issue is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case. In determining whether to award counsel fees, the court should review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties’ positions. A New York Custody Lawyer said the counsel fee award generally will be warranted where there is a significant disparity in the financial circumstances of the parties. The court may also consider whether either party has engaged in conduct or taken positions resulting in a delay of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation.

Published on: January 21, 2012

Court Rules on Child Support Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

Two years after a couple got married, their first child was born. After about four years of being married, the couple got divorced. Custody was given to the wife, and the court gave the father reasonable visitation rights. The wife got married again shortly after the divorce. She moved to Phoenix, Arizona after and did not notify the father, according to a New York Family Lawyer.

The father contacted missing children agencies in an effort to find the mother and the children, as he did not know where they went. The wife never tried to contact husband to get child support, even though she knew where was. After five years, she contacted father and told him where the children were. He resumed the child-support payments and visitation immediately. Two years after resuming contact, the wife filed a claim for child support in arrears.

In her claim, she reasoned that even if there was interference with the visitation, it is still the obligation of the non-custodial parent to pay child support. Child support and visitation are independent of each other. According to a Staten Island Visitation Lawyer, the Trial Court found the mother guilty of laches, which means she negligent in her making the claim. The court said she is not entitled to the child support in arrears. The mother appealed against this saying, she, being guilty of laches is not an appropriate reason not to grant her petition.

Published on: June 28, 2011

Axe-Wielding Man Shot Outside Daycare

by Stephen Bilkis

A man carrying an axe outside an in-home childcare facility in the community of Glenn Dale, in the District of Columbia area, was shot and killed by three police officers, authorities said.

The incident happened just before 3 p.m., a Prince George’s County Police spokesman told a NY Family Lawyer. According to the spokesman, officers were sent there to look into reports of an armed man around the daycare.

The suspect was part of a child custody dispute and wanted to take his children from the daycare. The daycare provider called the children’s mother, the police spokesman said, and the mother told the provider not to release the children to their father.