In this family case, defendant moves this Court for an order, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 170.30(1)(f), dismissing the charge of Assault in the Third Degree on the grounds that there exists a legal impediment to conviction.
That Complainant executed a misdemeanor information on December 8, 1990, alleging that her former husband intentionally caused physical injury to her on December 8, 1990 at 6:10 p.m. in the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, New York.
This is an action by plaintiff, as mortgagor, of her premises at New York for a judicial declaration regarding the terms of a bond and mortgage signed October 28, 1966.
Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that the terms of this bond and mortgage should be limited to the amount of $7,500.00. The Department of Social Services as current holder of the bond and mortgage is seeking an amount in excess of $36,000.00 pursuant to plaintiff’s having received such payments for the support of herself and her family as a recipient of the Aid to Dependent Children program.
The motion by defendant Board of Education of the Long Beach School District to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action is granted.
This is a pro se action for educational malpractice and the wrongful bringing of a neglect proceeding in the Family Court. Plaintiff and her husband have a 14 year old daughter who attends public school in Long Beach. Defendants are the Board of Education of the Long Beach School District and the Nassau County Department of Social Services (“DSS”).
The Plaintiff (“Husband “) commenced this action for divorce on November 24, 2008, by filing the Summons with Notice with the Nassau County Clerk. Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint sets forth causes of action for cruel and inhuman treatment, abandonment, and adultery. Defendant (“Wife”) interposed a Verified Answer denying certain allegations, demanding certain relief, and setting forth Affirmative Defenses for, inter alia, violation of the relevant statute of limitations; lack of specificity; failure to state a cause of action; forgiveness of the acts of adultery; and recrimination.
The parties were married on May 22, 1979 in Jerusalem, Israel. There are two emancipated children of the marriage. Husband filed a prior action for divorce in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which was discontinued on June 25, 2008. A second action was commenced by Husband in Nassau County Supreme Court on July 1, 2008 by the filing of a Summons with Notice with the Nassau County Clerk. The second action was discontinued on consent of both parties. The instant action is the third action for divorce commenced by Husband.
The petitioner, Delmi Y. (hereinafter referred to as “petitioner”), has filed a petition with this Court requesting that she be appointed as the guardian of her twelve-year-old nephew Orlin C. Y. (hereinafter referred to as “minor child”). The attorney for the minor child joins in the petitioner’s application and requests that this Court additionally issue an Order of Special Findings which would enable the minor child to petition the Department of Homeland Security for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act §101(a)(27)(J) and 8 Code of Federal Regulations §204.11. The respondent Carmen Y. is the biological mother of the minor child. The respondent Juan C. is the biological father of the minor child.
In addition to the petition, the petitioner and the minor child’s attorney have submitted the following: an affidavit from the minor child, a birth certificate for the minor child, a translated document signed by the minor child’s mother consenting to the petitioner having custody of the minor child, an affidavit indicating the efforts made to locate the minor child’s father, a document from the Ministry of the Public Attorney General of the Republic of El Salvador, and various other paperwork written in Spanish. Also provided was a Memorandum of Law, and a letter from the minor child’s attorney indicating that Federal Immigration Removal Proceedings are currently pending against the minor child. This Court ordered an investigation by the Nassau County Department of Social Services (hereinafter referred to as “D.S.S.”) regarding this matter. As part of their investigation, D.S.S. interviewed the minor child and the petitioner. D.S.S. provided this Court with a detailed report of the interviews and their findings.
On October 15, 1993, this Court issued a permanent order of protection directing the defendant to stay away from the complainant and to refrain from attempting to contact her. The People now move for an order amending the order of protection to include the complainant’s three children, two of whom are the defendant’s biological children.
The defendant was charged with Aggravated Harassment in violation of Penal Law 240.30(1) and Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree in violation of Penal Law 215.50(3) in an information bearing index number 19402/93. The complainant alleged in her supporting deposition annexed to the information that the defendant had made approximately twelve telephone calls threatening to kill her and to kill her children during the period from August 13, 1993 to September 3, 1993.
This Civil Court action involves a dispute over legal fees that span a period of nearly eight (8) years. The deterioration of the attorney-client relationship and the legal action that ensue, often reveal acts and omissions by both parties that requires judicial intervention and scrutiny.
The particulars of this dispute unfolded in this sequence of events. The Plaintiff is the senior attorney in a law office and is admitted to practice law in the State of New York. The Defendant, is a resident of the State of New Jersey. Based on the record the fiancé of the Defendant referred her to the law office for legal representation based on the fact that the aforementioned law office had successfully defended him in his divorce action. According to the parties, the parties participated in a meeting at the law office where the parties discussed the legal action proposed by plaintiff to remove tenants from a residential apartment in Brooklyn.
The issue here is whether renewal applications for four properties located in the Village of Freeport, Nassau County, are entitled to tax exemption pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 462. We affirm the order of the Appellate Division holding that the properties are tax exempt.
On September 24, 1999, respondent, Word of Life Ministries, submitted to Nassau County renewal applications for tax exempt status for four properties on the ground that they were used as residences by “officiating clergymen.” The applications mistakenly answered “yes” in response to the question whether the properties were used for purposes other than as residences of “the officiating clergy” stating that they were used as the residences of assistant pastors. Before the tax authorities made a decision, respondent corrected the applications before the County to state that the properties were used as residences for officiating clergymen. After reviewing the applications, Nassau County concluded that the properties were not tax exempt under RPTL 462. Respondent submitted similar applications to the Village of Freeport on July 25, 2000, but the Village rejected respondent’s attempt to correct its mistake. These applications were denied on or about August 15, 2000.
The defendants contend the doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable and would warrant a dismissal of these proceedings. On or about June 22, 1969, five youths were arraigned upon a complaint in the First District Court, Nassau County, New York, charged with violation of New York State Penal Law § 105.10 in that on June 21, 1969 at about 3:45 P.M. near the Southern State Parkway and Corona Avenue in North Valley Stream, Nassau County, New York, ‘the said defendants and each of them and each acting in concert with and aided and abetted by each other, with intent that conduct constituting a felony be performed did each agree with the other to engage in or cause performance of such conduct, to wit: the said defendants with the intent to violate § 130.35 of the Penal Law of the State of New York when by forcible compulsion they engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant.’
Four of the youths were subsequently indicted by the Nassau County Grand Jury on July 16, 1969 for the crimes of Rape in the First Degree (P.L. § 130.35) and Sexual Abuse in the First Degree (P.L. § 130.65) and arraigned in the Nassau County Court under indictment number 27613. The fifth boy was less than 16 years of age at the time of the alleged criminal acts and was charged with being a juvenile delinquent in the Family Court of Nassau County under Article 7 of the New York State Family Court Act.
In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, and a related proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate parental rights, the mother appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated December 18, 2009, and (2) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the same court dated May 11, 2010, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that she had permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights as to the subject child, and placed the child in the guardianship and custody of the Nassau County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.
“In proceedings to terminate parental rights based on permanent neglect, the agency must establish as a threshold matter that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship”. However, evidence of diligent efforts on the part of the agency are not required when “the parent has failed for a period of six months to keep the agency apprised of his or her location, provided that the court may consider the particular delays or barriers an incarcerated parent may experience in keeping the agency apprised of his or her location”.
New York Family Law Blog