Articles Posted in Nassau County

On June 9, 2009, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed a petition against Respondent Mother alleging she had abused and neglected her daughter. On June 8, 2009, a physician at the Medical Center reported that the child was brought to the hospital by EMS after Respondent found the child in an abnormal sleeping position and when he repositioned the child he had an abnormal pulse. A New York Family Lawyer said the child was brought to the hospital at 4:53 p.m. at which time he was pulse-less and all attempts to revive the child were unsuccessful; the child was pronounced dead at 6:30 p.m. The medical examiner reported that the official cause of death for the child is whiplash, shaking and blunt impacts of the head with subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhages. The child’s death has been ruled a homicide.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, respondent-mother admitted to ACS ESC and Police at the 47th precinct that on June 8, 2009, the child, woke up around 1:00 p.m. and was fussing and crying and didn’t want to sleep. The Respondent mother admitted that she was stressed out and tired and that the Respondent-mother shook the baby forcefully, several times at which point the baby stopped crying and the Respondent mother put him back in bed to sleep.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, in its Summation dated November 7, 2011, ACS stated that it has presented clear and convincing evidence that Respondent Mother acted with a depraved indifference to human life in causing serious physical injuries to the seven-month-old infant that resulted in his death. ACS stated that it had proven “aggravated circumstances” and that the infant was a “severely” abused child as defined in Family Court Act § 1012 (j) and Social Services Law § 384-b (8) (a), and that Respondent Mother failed to rebut any of the evidence presented by ACS. ACS urged the court to make a derivative finding of severe abuse as defined in Social Services Law 384-b (8) (a) as to the subject child. Further, based on the clear and convincing evidence of the heinous nature of Respondent Mother’s abuse of the infant, ACS stated that the court should terminate its duty to provide reasonable efforts to assist Respondent Mother in reunification with the surviving child.

Prior to the incident, infant plaintiff’s father was known to the defendant’s police officers at the 43rd Precinct, having previously been arrested by them approximately six times for drunkenness, abusive and physical assault upon his family. In July, 1975 he assaulted his wife with a knife, inflicting lacerations which required suturing at the Hospital; a New York Family Lawyer said that she thereafter brought a divorce action, which resulted in further violence by the infant plaintiff’s father and threats by him that he would kill her and the children if she proceeded with the divorce action. A Bronx Order of Protection Lawyer said that, the infant’s mother thereupon went into the Family Court where, she obtained a preliminary order of protection against her husband; thereafter, the order was finalized for one year and, over her strenuous objections, was amended to grant to the father visitation with the infant plaintiff from 10:00 A.M. on Saturdays to 6:00 P.M. on Sundays. After the parties left the courtroom the father attempted to assault his wife and he had to be restrained by a court officer. The Family Court judge was informed of the incident and thereupon directed the court officer to get him out of the building; however, the judge did not rescind his week-end visitation with the infant.

A Bronx Order of Protection Lawyer said that, in accordance with the provisions of the Family Court Act, a “Certificate of Order of Protection” was duly issued to the infant’s mother by the clerk of that court on November 6, 1975 certifying that an Order of Protection had been issued to her, pursuant to which the infant’s father was forbidden to assault, menace, harass, endanger, threaten or act in a disorderly manner toward petitioner and he is to remain away from the home of said petitioner.”

A New York Custody Lawyer said two days later, the infant’s mother took the infant to the 43rd Precinct to accord the infant’s father his week-end visitation. He took the infant and, as he was walking away, he made a death threat against his wife, and the infant, and he indicated to his wife that before the week-end was up she would be making “the sign of the cross” which to them meant that there would be a death. The mother immediately went into the precinct and told the desk officer of the death threats to herself and the infant; she showed the desk officer the Certificate of Order of Protection; she advised him of her fears and told him that she was frightened for the safety of her child and herself and that the Order of Protection protected her from such threats and she requested the police to take her husband into custody for violating said order. However, the police refused to do anything whatsoever. The infant’s father failed to return the infant at 6:00 P.M., as required by the Order of Protection. The mother again went into the station house and she again spoke to the police officer and the lieutenant she again demanded that the police arrest her husband for violating the order and protect the infant; once again the police refused to do anything whatsoever and told her to wait a couple of hours and that “perhaps” the father had taken the infant to a movie. Thereafter, the infant father’s sister entered his apartment. She found him lying on the floor with an empty whiskey bottle and an empty pill bottle lying beside him. She also found the infant, who had been viciously attacked, mutilated and severely injured by her father and she telephoned the police. The father had attacked the infant at about 7:00 P.M. with a fork, a knife and screwdriver; he had attempted to saw her leg off with a saw; she had been slashed from head to toe and she had sustained severe multiple internal injuries. Minutes later police officers from the same 43rd Precinct arrived and they rushed the infant to the Hospital in their police car, without waiting for an ambulance; the infant was immediately taken into surgery and she was operated. The infant was in a coma for several days and she remained in a critical condition for approximately three weeks and was hospitalized until December 19, 1975 she remains severely and permanently disabled. The father was arrested after the attack on the infant and he was thereafter indicted by the Grand Jury, tried and found guilty of attempted murder of the infant and he is now serving a jail sentence for the crime.

The natural parents, never married but lived together from 1967 to 1974, during which time three children were born. In August 1974, after many earlier criminal convictions, the natural father was convicted on drug charges and sentenced to prison for a two-year-to life sentence.A New York Family Lawyer said in 1975 the natural mother voluntarily placed the second born child, who suffers from severe physical and mental handicaps, in temporary foster care. The mother abandoned the two other children and on December 7, 1976 the Family Court placed them in the Commissioner of Social Services custody for 18 months. A Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that, during his entire imprisonment the natural father (whose whereabouts was then unknown) made no attempt to stay in touch with his family and he testified he heard nothing from the natural mother. Only after the agency, through its own diligent efforts, located him in a Correctional Facility in August 1977, did the natural father learned of the children’s foster care placements; immediately after being paroled, in September 1977, he visited the agency to seek custody or visitation. The three children, meanwhile, had lived in separate foster homes and facilities until summer 1977. The foster parents, had asked the agency for a handicapped child to adopt in 1976. A New York Custody Lawyer said after she had been placed in their home for some two months, the foster parents’ requested that the two other children join her; the children were reunited in September 1977 for the first time since 1975.

A Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that the agency denied the natural father’s requests for custody or visitation, and he began legal proceedings to protect his rights. On December 1, 1977 he was adjudicated the legal father, and, by agreement among counsel he had two visits with the children, the first in December 1977 and the second in February 1978. Only the oldest child had any recollection of her natural father, having been only one year old when he was imprisoned, and the handicapped child being mentally incapacitated. When these proceedings came to trial the natural father was unemployed, on parole, and living on public assistance with a woman he had known less than a year, who was expecting his child in December 1978. A New York Custody Lawyer said the foster parents live with the three children in a three-bedroom suburban garden apartment. The foster father is employed as a maintenance man; foster mother is a full-time housewife.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that the New York Hospital filed a petition pursuant to Section 384-b of the Social Services Law (“SSL”) seeking termination of parental rights and a transfer of custody and guardianship to NYFH; a petition was also filed by the Commissioner of Social Services (“CSS”) pursuant to Family Court Act (“FCA”) Section 1055 seeking an extension of this court’s original placement order entered in the course of a prior Article Ten neglect proceeding; and a petition in the form of a writ of habeas corpus filed by the natural father seeking return of the children to his custody.

This is a case being held before the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County. The issue involves the question of whether or not the delivery of an Orthodox Jewish divorce, called a “Get” can be registered in the state of Israel and act as a bar for litigation pertaining to a divorce in the state of New York. The plaintiff in this particular case is Alexander Tsirlin and the defendant of the case is Alla Tsirlin.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff husband began this action on the 11th of July, 2006 to obtain a divorce on the ground of abandonment and an order to grant the couple joint custody of their son Jonathon, with the wife obtaining physical custody and a set visitation schedule provided to the husband. He also requested a set amount of child support in accordance with child support standards.

Continue reading

This is an action for separation being heard in the Special and Trial Term of the Supreme Court in New York County. Rue Magowan is the plaintiff wife seeking the separation. Edward S. Magowan is the defendant of the case. A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff wife states that the defendant was cruel to her during the marriage and that he has abandon her and failed to support her. The defendant has made a counterclaim against the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff’s previous divorce was not valid which means that their marriage was never valid.

Case Background

The divorce in question in this case was granted in the state of Alabama in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County. The divorce was granted on the third of March in 1955. The defendant and plaintiff were married in 1957 on the 21st of May. Their marriage took place in Hot Springs Arkansas.

Continue reading

This is a case being heard before the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Nassau County. The plaintiff in the case is T.T. and the defendant in the matter is K.A. The plaintiff/wife is seeking a temporary order of relief while the divorce is being settled. The defendant/husband has moved for an order to dismiss the complaint.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the couple was married on the 20th of April in Ghana in a ceremony that is referred to as a customary marriage in the country. The couple has not stated that the marriage was registered, licensed, or in any way officially validated by a civil authority of Ghana. The couple has two children together who are emancipated.

Continue reading

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of Sullivan County. The plaintiff of the case is Sonia Rosenbluth and the defendant is Herbert Rosenbluth. The plaintiff is seeking a separation based on the grounds of non support and abandonment. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant has conceded the issue of abandonment. Abandonment without justification would indicate a decree of separation in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant argues that the abandonment was justified, stating that he left the plaintiff when it was determined that her divorce from her first husband in the state of Alabama was found to be void. The defendant is seeking an annulment of their marriage on this basis.

Case Facts

The plaintiff was married to Edward V. Langston prior to the 8th of August, 1956. Langston and the plaintiff lived in Orange County New York during their marriage. Langston was never present physically in the state of Alabama and the plaintiff was employed in Newburgh, New York during the marriage. A New York Custody Lawyer said the plaintiff took a vacation from her job to go to Alabama for the purpose of obtaining a divorce. It is clear that during the marriage the plaintiff and her former husband lived in New York and were never residents of Alabama.

Continue reading

This is a case before the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. The respondent in the matter is Harold J. Peterson. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendants and appellant of the case is Joel Goldberg, et al. The case before the court involves the issue of whether a cause of action for equitable distribution of an estate can be made by a person who has been granted a divorce in a foreign state prior to the death of the party in question.

Case Facts

Harriet Goldberg is the decedent of the plaintiff and lived as husband and wife with the defendant Joel Goldberg. The couple separated and the husband left the home in New York to live in Florida. The wife completed an instant action for divorce and ancillary relief in 1986. The husband procured an ex parte divorce judgment in the state of Florida in 1987. This effectively terminated the status of the couple as husband and wife. The husband remarried after the divorce was final. The divorce court in Florida did not attempt to make a settlement of the ancillary property issues that were relevant in the marriage being terminated.

Continue reading

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

Continue reading