Divorce

Published on: December 19, 2012

Plaintiff Says She was Fooled into Filing for Divorce

by Stephen Bilkis

Annette Lavi is the respondent in this case and the appellant is Houshang Lavi. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. The Special Term Court determined that in this particular case the Equitable Distribution Law allowed interim maintenance to be granted.

This case is quite unusual. The history of the couple begins when they were married on the 20th of December, 1968 in Queens County, New York. In July of 1969, the couple traveled to Juarez, Mexico. At this time the couple went before a Judge in the First Civil Court located in the Bravos District and the wife petitioned for a divorce. A New York Criminal Lawyer said this petition was granted and declared inter alia that the marriage between the couple that took place on the 20th of December, 1968 in New York was dissolved. This decree gave each party the right to remarry at their discretion.

The plaintiff was the one who initiated the divorce proceedings in Mexico. However, she states that she was fooled into doing so by the defendant. According to the plaintiff the defendant informed her in the beginning of 1969 that his feelings for her were gone because she was his and that if she was no longer his and they were no longer married that his feelings of love for her would come back. A New York Custody Lawyer said the plaintiff further states that the defendant told her that if they were divorced in Mexico that they could return to New York and continue to live together. She states that he said once his feelings of love returned that they would remarry.

Published on: December 18, 2012

Plaintiff Seeks Legal Separation

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of New York County, the Special, and Trial Term. In this case, the plaintiff, Helena A. Wood is suing the defendant, Walter A. Wood, for a decree of separation. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant has entered a counterclaim against the plaintiff for an annulment of the marriage or separation if the annulment is not granted. The plaintiff’s argument for separation is dependent on the marriage being valid.

Case Background

The couple was first married in 1959 in France. They were married again the following year in New York. The husband states that neither of these marriages is valid because the wife was previously married in Chihuahua Mexico and the divorce in Mexico was not valid.

Published on: December 16, 2012

Plaintiff Seeks Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Abandonment

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent and appellant in this case is Patricia W. Vanderbilt. The appellant and respondent in the matter is Cornelius Vanderbilt. The receiver and Sequestrator and respondent in this case is Thomas F. McCoy. This case is being heard in the Court of Appeals in the state of New York. The question that is being put in front of the court is the applicability of the Civil Practice Act in a divorce, separation, or annulment case.

Case Background

The plaintiff was living in Nevada in 1948 and the defendant was living in California. The couple was married in the state of Connecticut and then established their home in the state of California. The couple traveled throughout the United States and Europe during the course of their marriage. In September of 1952, the couple separated. When the couple separated, the wife moved to New York City. In October of 1952 she sued for a separation decree in a New York Court. This suit was dismissed by the court based on the one year residency requirement. The plaintiff visited California for a brief time and then returned to New York in 1953 and has lived in the state ever since.

Published on: December 15, 2012

Can Biological Parents Who Surrendered Rights, Still Retain Rights Over Child?

by Stephen Bilkis

This case raises the issue of the legal implications of the reservation of rights in surrender instruments executed by natural parents in accordance with the terms of Social Services Law § 383-c vis-a-vis the long-standing policy of this State that in an adoption the natural parent “shall have no rights over such adoptive child” (Domestic Relations Law § 117[1][a]. A New York Family Lawyer said the subject child was born September 15, 1989 and was placed in foster care in January 1991 after a finding of neglect. The child’s mother was convicted of manslaughter in 1991 for the death of the subject child’s brother and sentenced to six to eighteen years imprisonment. In June 1991, the agency placed the child with petitioner, his maternal great-aunt, where he has since resided continuously. The child has bonded with petitioner and her two daughters. Petitioner has maintained a relationship with the child’s mother and has taken him to the correctional institution for visitation. Petitioner desires to adopt the child. The agency discussed such adoption with the mother in developing the child’s permanent plan. On November 18, 1992, before the Judge of a Family Court, New York County, a Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that the mother surrendered the child for adoption, specifically solely by petitioner, pursuant to Social Services Law § 383-c. The surrender order further provides that the mother shall have such visits with the child after adoption as agreed to between the mother and petitioner. The child’s father executed a surrender on February 11, 1993 on the same terms and conditions.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, the adoption petition and support papers were executed by petitioner and the proceeding, supported by the agency, was initiated in the Bronx, petitioner’s county of residence. Petitioner also requested that the child retain his biological mother’s surname as that is the name by which he is known and identifies himself. A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, the court thereafter requested further information which was submitted. Petitioner and counsel appeared, and when questioned, counsel stated that there was nothing to be changed or modified in the papers, but if the court wanted anything, counsel would address it. The court dismissed the petition without a hearing.

The issue in this case is whether the biological parents of the subject child, after surrendering the child for adoption, retained its right over the child.

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 13, 2012

Court Decides doctrine of Divorce Issued in Ukraine will be Recognized

by Stephen Bilkis

Olga Vartsaba is the plaintiff of this case and Artur Vartsaba is the defendant. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant has moved for an order to dismiss the complaint made against him by the plaintiff on the ground that he and the plaintiff wife were previously divorced by a decree made in the Ukraine. He also states that the complaint should be dismissed on the basis of lack of jurisdiction of this court and seeks to sanction the plaintiff for a frivolous lawsuit and seeks awards for fees, costs, disbursements and fees for his attorney.

Case Background

On the 31st of July, 1995, the plaintiff received a letter from the United States of America stating that she was being awarded with winning the immigration lottery. The plaintiff, defendant, and their daughter then immigrated to the United States.

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.