Nassau County

Published on: March 14, 2015

Petitioner Contends Several Flaws with Court Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff is an experienced police informant, met the defendant towards the end of December, 1997 when they were both incarcerated at the Nassau County Jail. At the time that they met, the police informant was charged with the felony of scheme to defraud in the first degree and misdemeanor criminal contempt charges. The two men became friends in the correctional institution, and in March of 1998 defendant confided to him that he had secreted monies from his mother’s estate. Defendant told him in substance that he had been held in contempt by the Surrogate for withholding estate monies for which he had not made a proper accounting to the court. Defendant also indicated that he was represented by counsel in connection with the civil contempt proceeding. Defendant stated that he considered his brothers to be partially responsible for his incarceration, that he hated both of his brothers, and that he wanted to have one of his brothers killed. Defendant also expressed a desire to harm the Surrogate. Finally, defendant spoke of a woman to whom he had entrusted $45,000 who had squandered the money. He was concerned about this woman because she was in possession of certain documents of his which would prove damaging if they were obtained by the IRS. The police informant told defendant that he knew someone who could “take care” of his brother for him.

On March 18, 1998 the police informant wrote a letter to Surrogate informing him of defendant’s intentions and offering to be of assistance to law enforcement. Surrogate forwarded the letter to the Nassau County District Attorney’s office. In response to defendant’s letter, ADA and the investigator of the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office arranged to meet with him on March 24. At the meeting Ms. Meister questioned Miller about the matters mentioned in his letter to Surrogate took notes, and told him she would get back to him shortly as to whether he would be accepted for cooperation with the District Attorney’s office. On June 3, defendant again met with the police informant and stated that he wanted to “rearrange” the hit and to have the police informant contact and act as “the middleman.” Defendant also indicated that he had a $2,000 check which was available as a down payment on the contract. An indictment was filed against defendant on June 11, 1998.

Published on: March 10, 2015

Plaintiff Seeks Summary Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff, County of Nassau, seeks summary judgment on a complaint against the defendant property owners, claiming that they owe a $500.00 civil penalty. The complaint proceeds on the premise that defendants were fined $500.00 by the Board of Assessors for failing to timely file an “Annual Survey of Income and Expense, pursuant to Nassau County Administrative Code Section 6-30.” Defendants’ answer denies liability, and avers that County officials acted illegally and unconstitutionally in imposing such a penalty.

Upon the papers submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. While the Court presumes, for purposes of this decision, that NCAC section 6-30 is constitutional, plaintiff has failed to plead and prove basic elements of its claim. These failures include lack of proof that defendants were owners of “income producing property” as defined in section 6-30(a), lack of proof that the Board of Assessors duly requested an income and expense statement from them, and lack of proof that the Board of Assessors imposed such a penalty upon them, specifically. In the absence of such proof, the Court must deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Published on: March 8, 2015

Court Discusses “Operation Midway” Program

by Stephen Bilkis

On the face of it, these are merely two motions by the District Attorney for orders restoring two cases to the Trial Calendar and precluding them from admission to the Operation Midway Program. However, the broader thrust of these applications is the claim by the District Attorney that before the Administrative Judge of the County Court, in the exercise of his discretion, may consider a defendant for Operation Midway, the ‘consent’ of the District Attorney is required.

For a genuine understanding of what is at stake, a history of Operation Midway-type diversion programs is clearly in order. The following background emerges from a scholarly article by a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago and Co-director of the Center for Studies in Criminal Justice, as it appeared in Vol. 41, pp. 224–225, 238, Number 2, Winter 1974 of the University of Chicago Law Review. ‘In 1967 the Vera Institute of Justice established the Manhattan Court Employment Project to divert criminal defendants after their arraignment on felony or misdemeanor charges into a program of group therapy and employment counseling. If a defendant succeeds in a program and obtains a job, his pending criminal charges are dismissed. The goals of this innovative program are eloquently stated in the Vera Institute’s ten year report:

Published on: March 7, 2015

Plaintiffs Move for a Preliminary Injunction

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff, a builder, purchased a certain piece of property at New York in February 1996. Prior to purchasing the property he ascertained that the property was located in a Residence C zone which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet. He intended to subdivide the 21,383 square foot lot into two parcels and construct at least one and possibly two new homes on the property. Upon closing on the purchase of the subject property on September 19, 1996, he applied for approval of the subdivision. Thereafter, he was informed by the Nassau County Planning Commission that approval to subdivide was not required.

On or about October 16, 1996, plaintiff filed an Application for Permit to Build or Install with the Department of Planning and Research, Building Division of the Town of Oyster Bay. He was informed that his permit application would not be reviewed because the Town Board was considering a zoning reclassification for the area that included his property. Plaintiff learned that, based upon a petition signed by area residents, the Town Board was considering 1) changing the zone from Residence C (10,000 square feet) to Residence B-1 (20,000+ square feet) and 2) adopting a moratorium on building permits for new home construction. A public hearing was scheduled for October 29, 1996.

Published on: March 7, 2015

Issue in this Case Deals with Whether Plaintiff Can Pursue a Tax Certiorari Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner, an owner of a parcel of real property improved by a one-family dwelling in the Village of Atlantic Beach, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 against the village, its Board of Assessors and its Board of Assessment Review seeking, inter alia, review of the assessment of his property for the tax year 1987/88, a declaratory judgment invalidating the respondents’ method of reassessing the value of real property only upon resale and an injunction restraining the respondents from levying and collecting taxes with respect to the petitioner’s property for the 1987/88 tax year based upon its assessment pursuant to this challenged methodology. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and this appeal ensued.

The petitioner purchased the subject parcel of real property in June 1986 for the sum of $166,000. At the time of the purchase, the total assessment placed against the property was $14,505. Following the transfer of title, the value of the property was reassessed in the sum of $36,520. The petitioner filed a protest application with the Board of Assessment Review of the village after the increased assessment appeared on the village’s 1987/88 tentative assessment roll. Specifically, the petitioner complained that the assessor’s method of increasing the assessments on only those properties which were the subject of transfer to new owners in the taxing jurisdiction was illegal and discriminatory. The final tax roll reflected the increased assessment on the petitioner’s property thereby implicitly confirming the challenged reassessment.

Published on: October 24, 2014

Court Decides Child Custody in Light of Mentally Ill Respondent

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that on 12 October 2001, a petition was filed against the respondent mother.

As alleged in the petition, the respondent mother neglected her seven-year-old child, T, by failing to provide the child with appropriate medical attention to treat her ADHD, by refusing to accept board of education referrals for a special education program for T, and by failing to provide T with adequate shelter because of her failure to pay rent, electricity and gas bills, and by using marijuana and not enrolling in a drug treatment program; and, the respondent mother has been diagnosed as suffering from mental illness, “specifically as paranoid and delusional, and with a possible personality disorder.”

A New York Divorce Lawyer said on the basis of the mental illness allegation, the petitioner seeks for an order pursuant to Family Court Act Â§Â§ 251, 1038 (d) to have the respondent evaluated to determine whether she in fact suffers from an untreated mental illness which impairs her ability to care for the child.

Published on: October 12, 2014

Court Looks at Jurisdiction Issue in Divorce Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties were spouses who have two children of the marriage. From the date of the parties’ marriage until August 2002, the parties and their two children resided in Eastchester, in Westchester County with the wife’s mother in a residence owned by the wife’s mother. According to the wife, the husband abandoned her in that year. Thereafter the husband resided for some period of time in Nassau County with a woman with whom he has an out-of-wedlock child. The wife and the parties’ children moved to Dobbs Ferry New York. The husband resided with the wife and children in the Dobbs Ferry residence for a two and a half week period in April and May 2008. The husband’s 2009 driver’s license states his address is the wife’s Dobbs Ferry residence.

A New York Divorce Lawyer said that the husband commenced a prior action for divorce in Nassau County. Pursuant to an order, venue of said action was transferred to Westchester County. Thereafter, the husband also commenced another action for divorce against the wife in Westchester County. Both actions were dismissed. The wife has served an answer in the above captioned action seeking dismissal of the within action. She has not interposed a counterclaim for divorce.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the husband became a month-to-month tenant of an apartment in a private residence in Massapequa. His rent is $900.00 a month. Thereafter, he commenced the within action for divorce in Nassau County. His complaint asserts three causes of action, to wit: actual abandonment; social abandonment; and adultery. All the causes of action allegedly occurred in Dobbs Ferry in Westchester County.

Published on: September 21, 2014

Court Addresses Jurisdictional Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, this is a motion by the petitioner father to dismiss the respondent/applicant mother’s instant petition for modification of child custody and visitation order previously entered by this court during 1999. The instant petition was “clocked in” by the clerk’s office of this court on March 26, 2002 and first appeared on this court’s calendar July 12, 2002. Although the court cannot ascertain the date of service upon the petitioner, the date clearly was subsequent to April 28, 2002. Neither party has stated when service upon the respondent occurred.

A Nassau Family Lawyer said that, respondent states that the Family Court action was commenced by filing of the petition with the clerk of the court on March 26, 2002, and that therefore the law then in effect governs.

A New York Divorce Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether motion by the petitioner father to dismiss the respondent/applicant mother’s instant petition for modification of child custody and visitation order previously entered by this court during 1999.

Published on: September 18, 2014

court Decides Case Regarding Termination of Parental Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said this proceeding involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Columbia County entered 31 July 2007 which granted petitioner’s application in proceeding No. 1 pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10 to adjudicate respondent’s child to be neglected and from an order of said court entered 31 July 2007 which granted petitioner’s application in proceeding No. 2 pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to adjudicate the subject children to be permanently neglected and terminated respondent’s parental rights.

A and B (born in 2002 and 2004, respectively) were voluntarily placed by respondent in petitioner’s custody in February 2005. The parties agreed to a plan to locate and secure suitable housing for respondent and her children, as well as cooperate with petitioner in obtaining mental health services. This is so required by the petitioner as against the respondent to regain custody of her children. It also required that she participate in classes designed to enhance her parenting skills. Shortly thereafter, respondent, without giving notice to petitioner, relocated to New York City and, in December 2005, gave birth to a third child, C. In August 2006, Family Court determined that A and B were neglected children based upon respondent’s failure to keep petitioner informed of her address, as well as her failure to participate in preparing a plan for the children’s future or inquire about their status.

Thereafter, a New York Divorce Lawyer said that the New York County Department of Social Services commenced proceeding No. 1 pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10 to adjudicate C as a neglected child. C was temporarily removed from respondent’s custody and this proceeding was transferred to Columbia County. Petitioner then commenced proceeding No. 2 pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to adjudicate A and B to be permanently neglected. Family Court held a fact-finding hearing on both proceedings and ultimately found C to be neglected and A and B to be permanently neglected and terminated respondent’s parental rights with respect to A and B. Respondent now appeals.

Published on: September 1, 2014

Respondent Allegedly Fails to Comply with Separation Agreement

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said this is an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County, entered May 8, 1986, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 3A, for an order directing respondent to pay for child support of his child. A Nassau Child Support Lawyer said that, petitioner and respondent were married in 1950 and divorced in 1980. Pursuant to a separation agreement entered into in 1977, respondent agreed to pay $150 per week to petitioner and their two unemancipated children as child support, such sum to be reduced by $25 as each child became emancipated. It is clear that respondent has failed to comply with this provision of the separation agreement, as petitioner was awarded a money judgment in Supreme Court in 1983 for support arrears.

A New York Divorce Lawyer said that, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 3A in 1984 in Nassau County Family Court. The petition and petitioner’s testimony were certified and transmitted to Ulster County Family Court, where respondent resided. Following a hearing in Ulster County Family Court and petitioner’s appearance in Nassau County Family Court to answer questions concerning her finances, Ulster County Family Court ordered respondent to pay petitioner $90.50 per week for the support of the remaining dependent child and $20 per week in support arrearages. It is from this order that respondent appeals.

The issue in this case is whether the Ulster County Family Court erred in ordering respondent to pay petitioner $90.50 per week for the support of the remaining dependent child and $20 per week in support arrearages.