Articles Posted in Nassau County

A Caucasian woman married an African-American man on December 5, 1973. They had a daughter. The woman filed for divorce on the ground that her husband was physically abusing her and that he had extra-marital affairs with other women. A New York Custody Lawyer said she then asked the family court for custody over her child during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. She also asked for child support and for possession of the family home.

The husband made counterclaims against his wife. He charged her with neglect, physical and verbal abuse as well as abandoning their home and taking their child from him.

The family court granted custody to the mother during the pendency of the divorce proceedings and also ordered child support to be paid to her. During the pendency of the divorce, the father was to have visitation rights. Once during the divorce proceedings, the child was taken by her father on one of his visits. He never returned the child and the woman asked for an order of protection against the father. The mother then exerted efforts to find her daughter. She succeeded in discovering her husband’s whereabouts and the mother went to San Francisco, California to take custody over her own child and brought her back with her to New York.

Continue reading

In an action for a divorce and additional relief, the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court as awarded counsel fees to the complainant wife. A New York Family Lawyer said the wife was awarded with $150 per week in child support, granted the husband with visitation to the infant only to the extent that it is supervised to the wife’s satisfaction, and distributed the marital assets in the proportion of 75% to the complainant wife and 25% to the husband.

The judgment is modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, deleting the $430.00 and substituting the words $372.50; deleting the $150.00 and $430.00, and substituting, respectively, $86.63, and $372.50; deleting the words which equals $100.00 per week, leaving a balance of $50.00 per week, and substituting the words leaving a balance of zero; striking the eighth decretal paragraph and substituting a provision granting the wife a credit for the required payments on the balance of her purchase-money mortgage of $372.50 per month until the entire mortgage amount of $24,000 has been paid; deleting $150.00, and substituting the $86.63; adding to the eleventh decretal paragraph thereof, after the figure $2,885.84, and the complainant’s Nissan automobile with a net value of FOUR-THOUSAND DOLLARS ($4,000); and striking the twelfth decretal paragraph. As modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the complainant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and determination on the issue of visitation, unless the parties can reach an agreement on visitation prior thereto. In the interim, a New York Custody Lawyer said the provisions for visitation contained in the third decretal paragraph shall continue.

The trial court properly distributed the marital assets in a proportion based upon the ratio of the parties’ respective earnings during the latter years of the marriage, when most of the marital assets were acquired. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the award of the greater proportion of the marital assets to the wife was particularly appropriate in view of her extraordinary efforts to improve the economic condition of the family when compared to the husband’s complacency in that respect. The court erred, however, in failing to include as a marital asset the parties’ automobile which was purchased with savings accumulated during the marriage.

Continue reading

On October 15, 1999, a child was born between the petitioner mother and respondent father. The respondent father acknowledged his paternity and his name was placed on child’s birth certificate. Respondent visited regularly and contributed to the child’s support for 18 months. However, a New York Custody Lawyer said the parties never married or lived together because respondent has a famil of his own. Accordingly, in the spring 2001, the parties’ relationship ended, although respondent continued to call the petitioner to discuss the child during the months that followed. During the years that follow, respondent father did not visit nor give support to the child.

The mother then met and married her current husband. The mother moved out of her apartment but submitted a change of address notification form to the United States Post Office. She changed her home telephone number but kept the same cell phone number, the same job, the same work address and the same telephone number at work. The mother notified her landlord about her move.

Thereafter, the respondent father received a notice from the petitioner mother’s intent for stepparent adoption. Respondent father filed a petition seeking visitation rights and opposed the adoption. In his petition, respondent alleged that he did everything for the child. On 2006, the petitioner mother and her husband filed a stepparent adoption.

Continue reading

The sanctity of the American home is considered one of the most vital of all rights in this free society. It is because of this attitude that search and seizure laws are constantly being revisited. The American jurisprudence system obtained the roots of its procedural law from the old English version of common law. A New York Family Lawyer said that one of the main issues of strife between the colonists and the English authorities was the invasion of colonist’s homes without a warrant. On the other side of the coin was that the authority to enter a home without a warrant was established as a means to ensure the health and peace of the citizenry at any time. It has been reviewed numerous times. Some people still contend that the ability to force entry into a person’s home for the purpose of arresting them without a warrant is legal under the common law approach from English law.

Most Americans believe that their homes are secure from invasion by the government as long as the government agent does not have probable cause to obtain a warrant. Prior to 1961, New York like most other states, conducted warrantless searches of a person’s home whenever they could show that they had probable cause to believe that the person lived at the residence. In 1961, Dolree Mapp was in her home when Ohio police officers arrived and demanded entry to search for her boyfriend. A New York Custody Lawyer said that Ms. Mapp demanded that they show her a warrant before she would let them in. The officers left, but returned shortly with a document that they claimed was a search warrant. Ms. Mapp snatched the paper and put it down the front of her dress. A police officer retrieved it and she was arrested for having indecent materials in a box in her cellar. She claimed that the indecent material was nude drawings from her art class. Ms. Mapp was convicted and appealed her conviction. Her Supreme Court case became a landmark case that created the requirement of search warrants at the state as well as the federal level. Prior to 1961, state officials could conduct a warrantless search to arrest a person whom they believed was guilty of a felony. Following Mapp v Ohio, warrants became required by state officials. This case changed many procedures.

It is surprising then that this argument is still being challenged. However, the sanctity of a person’s home should not be violated lightly. American’s hold the sanctity of home in high regard, that leaves the question of the constitutionality of warrantless arrests in the home unanswered. It is held as common knowledge that an officer may arrest a felon in a public place without the benefit of a warrant. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the warrantless arrest of a felon in the sanctity of their own homes is a different situation. As years progress, the requirements tighten to ensure that officers respect at all cost the sanctity of a person’s home. The arrest or seizure of a person in a public place, is less intrusive and should not be held to the same standard as an invasion of a citizen’s home. That being said, the history has been clear that no person need allow an official of the state to enter their homes without a warrant. There are exigent circumstances such as the endangerment of life that allow such intrusions. Exigent circumstances are those circumstances that are so time sensitive that a person could be seriously injured or killed if the time is taken to secure a warrant. A Queens Family Lawyer said that under exigent circumstances, an officer may enter a person’s home in order to prevent a greater wrong from being done.

Continue reading