New York City

Published on: January 2, 2013

Plaintiff Reports Divorce Papers Signed Under Duress

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard before the Special Term of the Supreme Court of Nassau County in the state of New York. This plaintiff in this case is Jean DiRusso and the defendants in the case are Fortunato DiRusso and Regina Anna DiRusso. A New York Family Lawyer said the action before the court is for a declaratory judgment and is the fifth litigation brought forth between the plaintiff wife and the defendant husband. The plaintiff wife is seeking a judgment stating that she is the lawful wife of the defendant husband and that the defendant husband and the defendant, Regina Anna Furrer-DiRusso are not husband and wife. The plaintiff is asking that the defendant husband be required to support the plaintiff and that he and the defendant Regina Anna Furrer provide fees for counsel and disbursements for prosecution in this action.

The defendants have answered and join in a request for a declaratory judgment and counterclaim for a declaration that the plaintiff wife is not the lawful wife and that he and Regina Anna Furrer are legally married.

Case Background

Published on: January 2, 2013

Father Seeks Visitation in Adoption Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said this proceeding is an adoption and a matrimonial wherein respondent father sought enforcement of the visitation provisions of a separation agreement. The mother and her new husband appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County entered 20 October 1983, as, pursuant to an order dated 12 May 1982, removed the adoption proceeding from the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, and consolidated it with the motion pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied an application to dispense with the father’s consent to a proposed adoption, granted the father specific visitation with the child, and awarded appellant mother only $7,700 in arrears of child support.

The court modifies, on the facts, by increasing the sum of accrued child support payments from $7,700 to $8,020. Accordingly, the court affirms the judgment insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

A New York Custody Lawyer said on 4 November 1973, the appellant mother was married to the respondent father. On 1 December 1976 their only child was born. On 8 June 1979, the mother and respondent entered into a written separation agreement and on 28 July 1980, they were divorced by judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The provisions of the separation agreement survived the divorce decree.

Published on: January 1, 2013

Court Decides if Someone Who Commits Adultery is Allowed to Obtain Legal Separation

by Stephen Bilkis

The Supreme Court located in New York County is overseeing this case involving the plaintiff Joy Silverman and the defendant Jeffrey Silverman. From the beginning, this case has been driven by two different concerns. A New York Family Lawyer said the husband wishes to have a divorce granted immediately without waiting for the final determination of the ancillary financial issues and the wife believes that the husband should not be allowed the divorce until a judgment settles all of the existing financial issues of the case.

Case Background

In August of 1994, the defendant, Jeffery Silverman served the plaintiff wife, Joy Silverman with papers commencing a divorce action in the state of Connecticut. The grounds for the divorce were irreconcilable differences. These grounds were unavailable to him in the state of New York.

Published on: January 1, 2013

Court Looks at Husband’s Drug Use in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the complainant Wife and the defendant Husband exchanged marital vows in an Orthodox Jewish ceremony in Nassau County. At the time of the marriage the parties were very young New York residents, the Wife was 18 years old and the Husband, 22. Although the Wife had two years of college education at the College for Women in New York City, the Husband merely finished high school. She stopped studying without obtaining a degree after the birth of their first child and three more followed. After the children were born, the Wife became a full time homemaker and parent. The parties raised their children adhering to the tenets of Orthodox Judaism and the children attended the former school of the Husband.

At the time of their marriage in August 1983, the Husband was a Jewish music producer and sole owner and employee of an Orchestra, which primarily booked bands for weddings and other special events. A New York Custody Lawyer said through the Orchestra and the use of professional production studios, the Husband also produced albums and recordings for some well-known Hasidic musical entertainers, both in New York and in Israel. The Husband initially maintained a business office in Queens, which later operated from the marital home. The Husband at some point sold the company name of the Orchestra, but continued in the same business, calling his company with another name. Throughout the marriage, the Husband remained the primary support for the household with these enterprises.

Upon the formation of the new company in or about 1985, the Husband’s income increased to the range of $100,000 to $125,000 per year. A Suffolk County Family Lawyer said this would later include the Husband’s income of $50,000 to $75,000 which is generated from his employment by the non-profit Jewish organization. From 1989 through 1996, the Husband’s primary function with the non-profit Jewish organization consisted of putting together an annual special concert in New York City’s Lincoln Center that raised major funds for the organization. The Husband testified that in one year during the early to mid 1990’s, he had occasion to earn $150,000 as a result of the fundraising concerts and his employment by the organization, although he never attained that income level again.

Published on: December 14, 2012

Court Hears Allegations of Fraud in Divorce Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the First Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division. A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff and appellant in the case is Edeline Augustin. The defendant and respondent in this case is Nerva Augustin. The plaintiff is appealing an order that was made in the Supreme Court located in New York County that denied her motion to vacate a judgment for divorce that was entered by the court in 1985.

Case Background

The couple was married in January of 1973 in Haiti. They have three adult children from their marriage. The husband commenced an action for divorce in a court in Haiti in 1983. The divorce was granted by the Haitian court. The validity of this decree has been questioned.

Published on: December 12, 2012

Court Discusses Concept of Equitable Estoppel

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner seeks visitation with the subject child, the biological child of the respondent. The petitioner and respondent married sometime after the child’s birth. A New York Family Lawyer said the child was born on November 17, 1997 and nearly two years later the petitioner executed an acknowledgment of paternity and had his name added to the child’s birth certificate. For several years the couple held him out to be her biological father even though they knew he was not. The petitioner and respondent began having marital problems and the child’s biological father, at some point apparently came back into the respondent’s life. A Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that, the child’s biological father seeks an order of filiation and the respondent seeks to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, claiming her signature on it was forged. The biological father and the mother filed their respective petitions simultaneously. In addition, the respondent is pursuing a family offense proceeding against her estranged husband alleging that he verbally harassed her over the phone. A criminal case based on allegations made by the mother against her estranged husband is also pending before this court.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, a hearing was commenced with respect to the respondent mother’s petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity on the grounds of fraud. During the hearing, however, and after the biological father filed his paternity petition, the parties conceded that he is the subject child’s biological father. Independent DNA testing of the biological father confirmed his paternity. This evidence obviates the need for the court to continue taking testimony with respect to the allegations of fraud because Family Court Act Â§ 516-a (b), the statute governing acknowledgments of paternity, specifically states that the court “shall” vacate an acknowledgment if it finds the alleged father, here, the biological father, is in fact not the biological father. To ask the court to continue hearing testimony on the allegations of fraud â€” as the petitioner and the law guardian do in their briefs â€” is in contravention of the plain language of Family Court Act Â§ 516-a (b). It is also asking this court to ignore indisputable scientific evidence and the parties’ own admissions. The Court said that acknowledgment of paternity is vacated and that the biological father herein will be issued an order of filiation.

The issue in this case is whether the petitioner, as a biological stranger, has standing to maintain his visitation petition.

Published on: December 11, 2012

Plaintiff Seeks Divorce on the Grounds of Abandonment

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this particular case is C. Lynn Elson and the respondent in the matter is Barry R. Elson. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division, Second Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. A New York Family Lawyer said the question that is put before the court in this case is the impact of an out of state divorce decree on the equitable distribution of the estate that is in the state of New York.

Case Background

The defendant husband in this action resided in the state of Colorado for two years. He pursued an action to obtain a divorce in the state of Colorado after this time. The decree for divorce is dated the 28th of December, 1979. This precludes the effective date of the Equitable Distribution Law of this state by seven months.

Published on: December 10, 2012

Plaintiff Did Not Take Property at the Time of Divorce so Gave Up Her Rights to It

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York. The appellant in this case is Ellen Corcoran, who is the executrix of the estate of John J. O’Connell, deceased. The respondent in this case is Maureen O’Connell.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the respondent, Maureen O’Connell was married to the appellant, the deceased John J. O’Connell in 1959. The couple had eight children during their marriage. Each of the children are now emancipated. The plaintiff moved out of the marital residence in 1982 and began a divorce proceeding in New York. This divorce procedure was based on inhuman and cruel treatment.

Published on: December 9, 2012

Plaintiff Gave Up Rights to Marital Property by Moving to Different State

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Special Term, located in Nassau County. The plaintiff in the case is Theresa Huber and the defendant in the case is Adolph Huber. Both the defendant and the plaintiff have moved for summary judgment.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties were married in the state of New York in 1946. In 1959, the plaintiff wife moved to Florida and established a residence there. On the 11th of May, 1960, the plaintiff wife was granted an absolute divorce in the state of Florida. The premises of the couple during their marriage was sought to be partitioned.

Published on: December 7, 2012

When Plaintiff Moved, Court Said She Gave Up Marital Property

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Special Term, located in Nassau County. The plaintiff in the case is Theresa Huber and the defendant in the case is Adolph Huber. Both the defendant and the plaintiff have moved for summary judgment.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties were married in the state of New York in 1946. In 1959, the plaintiff wife moved to Florida and established a residence there. On the 11th of May, 1960, the plaintiff wife was granted an absolute divorce in the state of Florida. The premises of the couple during their marriage was sought to be partitioned.