Articles Posted in Queens

A New York Family Lawyer said a couple obtained a divorced pursuant to a decision of the court. In addition, the condition also ordered that the father was obligated to keep and maintain hospital and medical insurance coverage, or better coverage, for the benefit of the children, as long as he is obligated to make child support payments. The decision further provided that the father shall claim his youngest child as an exemption on his personal income tax returns for income tax purposes as long as he complies with the terms of the condition.

Subsequently, a New York Child Custody Lawyer said a woman was appointed as the guardian of the father. Sources revealed that the need for a guardian was stemmed from injuries sustained by the father subsequent to the divorce action. The aforementioned order and decision authorized the establishment of a supplemental needs trust for the benefit of the father out of which certain expenses could be paid including child support, premiums for health insurance for the man’s children, life insurance premiums, medical expenses for the children and 1 1/2 of the annual college education costs at any state university.

The duties and obligations of the father owing to his former wife and his children, and his rights arising out of the divorce action, are defined by the condition of settlement. A Queens Family Lawyer in the mother’s application to modify those duties, obligations and rights by an expansion of the guardian’s powers, it is in effect seeking to have the court in the guardianship proceeding to modify the decision in the divorce action.

Continue reading

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 467(b), for enforcement of the alimony and child support provisions of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, the ex-husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, which rejected his objections to a Hearing Examiner’s order, which, inter alia, increased the amount of alimony and child support awarded in the judgment to the total amount of $250 per week.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the parties were married in November 1964. During the course of the marriage they had three children. The parties were divorced in 1979 pursuant to a judgment which incorporated but did not merge the terms of their stipulation of settlement.

The schedule indicates that it was the intention of the parties that the amount of money payable by the appellant ex-husband both for alimony and for child support was to decrease over time. A New York Custody Lawyer said the appellant, however, fell into arrears and in 1980 the respondent ex-wife obtained an enforcement order, and in 1981, a payroll deduction order, each in the total amount of $250 per week. The $25 reduction which was to occur in 1981 was never realized by the appellant as he took no action to challenge the 1980 enforcement order or the 1981 payroll deduction order.

A New York Family Lawyer said that, order of disposition, Family Court, New York County, entered on or about November 30, 2009, which, upon denial of respondent mother’s application to dismiss the neglect petition pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(c) and a fact-finding determination that the mother neglected the subject child, among other things, released the subject child to the custody of non-respondent father, and order, same court and Judge, entered on or about November 9, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarded custody of the child to the father, unanimously affirmed, without costs. A New York Family Lawyer said that, appeal from orders, same court and Judge, entered on or about February 2, 2010, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, set forth a visitation schedule for respondent mother, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a non-appealable order. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, the order, same court and Judge, entered on or about February 16, 2010, which, to the extend appealed from as limited by the briefs, modified the February 2, 2010 order and set forth certain travel and relocation conditions for petitioner father, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Judge, entered on or about April 8, 2010, which granted respondent father’s motion to dismiss the mother’s petition to modify the visitation orders, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether the neglect petition pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(c) and a fact-finding determination should be granted.

The court in deciding the case said that, a preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court’s finding that the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the mother’s long-standing history of mental illness and resistance to treatment. The mother testified to multiple extended hospitalizations for mental illness, and the record showed her lack of insight into her illness and her repeated relapses due to noncompliance with treatment and medication. Family Court also properly denied the mother’s motion to dismiss the neglect petition pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1051(c), since the dangers the mother posed to the child had not passed and thus the court’s continued aid was required.

Continue reading

On 2 August 1999, this proceeding was commenced by the filing of an order to show cause. The petitioner is seeking a modification of a custodial visitation schedule established as a result of a stipulation of settlement subsequently incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce dated 13 September 1995 in the Rockland County Supreme Court. A New York Family Lawyer said the respondent has filed an affirmation in opposition and an attorney’s affirmation in which the issue of this court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter is raised. The respondent claims that the home State for the child is New Jersey and, therefore, this court is without jurisdiction to proceed.

The Law Guardian for the child has submitted a reply affirmation in which she takes the position that this court does have jurisdiction. On 23 August 1999, the petitioner submitted an affidavit in response to the respondent’s answer together with a memorandum of law. On 26 August 1999, the respondent filed a reply affirmation.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the facts in this proceeding are not in significant dispute. The parties have joint custody of A who is now almost 10 years of age. A resides with B in Lincoln Park, New Jersey, during the week, as well as the first weekend of every month during the school year. She splits summer vacation and alternates other vacations and holidays with her parents. In addition, the child has a Wednesday visitation with her mother from 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. The parties have joint legal custody.

Continue reading

This criminal case involved the violent assault of the plaintiff by an intruder into her apartment, the intruder having made a duplicate key to the apartment after being furnished the original key by the landlord for the purpose of repairs being made in the apartment. A New York Family Lawyer said that, having been found negligent by the jury for its conduct and ineffective security, the landlord sought to apportion the total fault between itself and the non-defendant intentional tortfeasor, the man who committed the violent assault. In the case before this court, suit was brought against the County of Nassau alleging negligence on the part of its Police Department arising from the following facts.

Plaintiff and her husband had an ongoing marital dispute. He had in the recent past thrown a substance in plaintiff’s eyes, temporarily blinding her, stolen her car and threatened to kill her. A New York Custody Lawyer said that, plaintiff obtained a Temporary Order of Protection against her husband from the Family Court Queens County. The order was renewed by that court and was in effect on the night of the incident which gave rise to the suit against the County. The Family Court had also issued a warrant for the husband’s arrest.

A Queens Family Lawyer said that, on that night plaintiff had attended night classes at LaGuardia Community College in Long Island City. At about 10:00 P.M., she entered her car and shortly after she started to move, her husband, who had hidden himself in the car, (apparently having a set of keys to gain entrance) jumped into the front passenger seat, showed his wife a knife and told her to drive home in Far Rockaway.

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said when defendant was arraigned in this court on August 25, 1998, on a single count of aggravated harassment in the second degree, two separate non-family offense orders of protection were issued pursuant to CPL 530.13. Both were full stay-away orders protecting four named individuals. The matter was marked for conference and adjourned for two days, at which time the defendant requested a hearing to test the legality of the orders. A New York Custody Lawyer said that, when the matter was adjourned to this court, the People withdrew their prior consent and objected to holding the hearing, arguing that defendant did not have a right to an evidentiary hearing solely at his request. The matter was thereupon adjourned for submission of memoranda of law.

A Queens Family Lawyer said that, defendant’s motion challenges the constitutionality of CPL 530.12 and 530.13, arguing that the failure of these statutes to provide for an adversarial evidentiary hearing at defendant’s request before a temporary order of protection is issued or continued deprives defendant and others similarly situated of due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, § 6 of the New York Constitution.

The issue in this case is whether CPL 530.12 and 530.13 is constitutional.

Continue reading

This case presents the Court with a repetitive issue confronting domestic violence parts in the courts. The complaining witness/victim, of domestic violence now wishes to recant their testimony. The recantations are the product of many imperatives, not all of which serve the interests of the victim or justice.

A New York Family Lawyer said that, the defense counsel moves post-conviction and post-sentencing for the above relief on three separate dockets after the defendant in a negotiated plea was convicted and sentenced to forty-five (45) days in jail, three (3) years of probation and a “stay away” order of protection in favor of complainant. More specifically, the defendant in this case pled guilty to one count of Penal law §120.45(2), stalking in the fourth degree, another count of Penal law §215.50(3), criminal contempt in the second degree while the count of Penal law §240.30(1), aggravated harassment in the second degree was dismissed in satisfaction.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether defendant’s motion modifying the condition of probation as to participation in continued therapy and treatment for domestic violence and for an order vacating and/or modifying the herein order of protection should be granted.

Continue reading

The petitioner spouse filed a supplemental petition alleging that the respondent failed to obey the modified order of protection issued by the court. A New York Family Lawyer said the supplemental petition alleged that the respondent, upon release from incarceration for prior violation of the order of protection, arrived at the petitioner’s residence with police at approximately 1:00 a.m. attempting to gain entry to the petitioner’s residence and subsequently on March 11, 1994, that a car belonging to a friend was towed from the petitioner’s driveway, and the petitioner thinking the car stolen filed a police report and later learned where the car was towed, and upon inquiring found the respondent had filed a complaint and stated to be the owner of the property and claimed that the car was illegally parked and have the car towed.

A warrant was issued for the respondent’s arrest. The respondent was returned on the warrant on March 21, 1994, and issue joined. A New York Custody Lawyer said the hearing was held and at the conclusion of the hearing the court made two findings beyond a reasonable doubt to wit that the respondent willfully violated the final order of protection by attempting to gain entry to the petitioner’s residence and that the respondent willfully violated the final order of protection by having a vehicle lawfully parked on the petitioner’s property towed from that property with false representations by respondent that he was the owner of the property, that the car was unlawfully parked, all to harass and annoy the petitioner.

At the dispositional phase of the supplemental proceeding brought pursuant to Family Court Act 846, the court based on the prior history of family offense activity perpetrated upon the petitioner by the respondent; the fact that the respondent had been committed previously by a County court to incarceration for one hundred and eighty days; that the respondent apart from that commitment, had been civilly committed by the court for willful violation of the order of protection to incarceration for six months; that the respondent upon release from his most recent commitment had almost simultaneously violated the order of protection again; that the respondent’s behavior indicated an intractable design to continue to annoy and harass the petitioner; and considering the welfare not only of the petitioner, but of the two children, the court determined to civilly commit the respondent for each of the two willful violation to a term of incarceration of six months for the finding of violation and of four months for the finding of violation occurring on March 11, 1994, to run consecutively.

Continue reading

Before the Court are cross petitions filed by the father and the mother seeking custody of the child LJ born June 1, 1998. The father, LR, filed his petition on December 27, 2007. The mother, KR, filed her petition on December 31, 2007.

A New York Family Lawyer said the child is currently in the temporary custody of the Department of Social Services (hereinafter referred to as “DSS”) as the result of a removal pursuant to a neglect proceeding. He was placed by DSS with the paternal grandmother, EA, in January, 2006 pursuant to the Family Court Act.

Currently, the DSS is ready to return the child to a parent but has no position as to which parent. As each parent has filed for custody of the child, a hearing was held leaving that determination to be made by this Court.