Articles Posted in Queens

On June 30, 2010, Petitioner filed an Illegal Lockout proceeding by order to show cause in lieu of notice of petition, alleging that on May 5, 2010, his wife, Respondent had illegally locked him out of their apartment located at 1880 Valentine Avenue, Bronx, New York. Neither party appeared on the return date nor did the court dismiss the petition. A New York Family Lawyer said that, petitioner filed a second Illegal Lockout proceeding. On that occasion, Petitioner alleged that Respondent wife had locked him out of the subject premises in February 2010. Although Respondent appeared, Petitioner again failed to appear and the court dismissed that proceeding as well.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, petitioner filed the Illegal Lockout proceeding now before the court, by order to show cause in lieu of notice of petition, on July 16, 2010, alleging that his wife had locked him out of the subject premises. Petitioner further alleged that he had contacted the police and that the police ordered him to leave. On July 23, 2010, both parties appeared and this court ascertained that on July 16, 2010, Family Court, Bronx County, granted each party a Temporary Order of Protection against the other. The Order of Protection obtained by respondent directed to petitioner, to stay away from respondent and the three minor children who reside with her at 1880 Valentine Avenue, Bronx, New York, and expressly excluded Petitioner from their home, the subject premises. In addition, Petitioner herein was directed to stay away from respondent’s place of employment and to refrain from any communication or other contact with the parties listed in the Order, except for court-ordered visitation with the parties’ infant child. Further, there was currently pending in Family Court a Family Offense proceeding, and a child custody and visitation proceeding, which listed petitioner’s address as 1160 Wheeler Avenue, Apt. # 1, Bronx, New York, not the address of the subject premises of this Lockout proceeding. Based upon the information presented, this court determined that Family Court was the most appropriate forum to resolve the parties’ dispute and dismissed the petition. The parties were directed to seek recourse in Family Court.

A Queens Family Lawyer said that, petitioner filed an order to show cause in Housing Court, alleging that the Family Court petition did not accurately state his address. On July 30, 2010, this court denied Petitioner’s motion based upon improper service. On August 4, 2010, Petitioner filed a second order to show cause in which he alleged that he had proof that Family Court had misstated his address. On August 13, 2010, the motion was adjourned to September 7, 2010. Petitioner failed to appear and the court again denied the motion.

Continue reading

The parties were married in January 2004, separated about a year and a half later and were divorced on July 13, 2006. They are the parents of a now six-year-old boy born on May 17, 2004. A New York Family Lawyer said the stipulation settling the divorce case granted the mother legal and physical custody of the child. The father had visitation every week from Monday at 8:00 p.m. until Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. The stipulation allowed relocation within 25-miles of the father’s house in the Bronx. The father has had a history of irregular employment and is currently not employed. At the time of trial, the mother, who is remarried, cared for her younger child from her second marriage, full time.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, after the parties separated, the mother remained in the marital apartment in the Bronx with the child for two years. In the fall of 2007, she began working as a project administrator in the construction field. In 2007, she moved with the child and her boyfriend to Connecticut. The mother testified that she always wanted her son to be in a suburban environment. She stated that she was trying “to mirror my own childhood. I had a wonderful suburban upbringing.” The relationship in Connecticut ended when the boyfriend returned to his native New Zealand. The mother returned to New York with the child and moved into an apartment in Harlem.

A Queens Family Lawyer said that, in March 2008, the mother met her future husband, on Match.com. He was retired from the Air Force, lived in North Carolina and was then involved in a nation-wide job search. Ultimately, he took a job with Northrop Grumman in San Diego. He had requested to work at Northrop Grumman’s Long Island branch, but the company could not accommodate his request. The mother and his future husband became engaged in May 2008. Soon after her engagement, the mother approached the father about moving to California to live with her future husband. The father was concerned about the distance and the stability of the mother’s new relationship.

Continue reading

A husband seeks custody of their two children from his wife who surreptitiously left the conjugal home in New York and took the children to Virginia where the wife’s relatives all lived.

During the trial, the husband and the wife testified. A New York Family Lawyer said the mother-in-law of the wife and the sister-in-law of the wife also testified for the husband and against the wife. The judge took the two children to a nearby park and interviewed the children. The judge videotaped this interview with the children.

During the custody hearing it was proved that the husband and the wife had a child when they were just teenagers. They got married within three years after the birth of their first child. The wife was emotionally and physically abused. The abuse consisted of sexual assault. The husband would force the wife to have sex. He would kick the woman and bite her, hit her with his fists in her back and buttocks. He also constantly criticized and insulted her within the hearing of their children. A New York Custody Lawyer said both the husband and the wife took drugs. The wife’s injuries were documented by emergency room visits where the nature and extent of her injuries were reported. The husband and wife were separated from each other for nine months. During these nine months, the husband fathered a child by another woman. He then left his newborn child by another woman and returned to the conjugal home. By that time, the wife had already sobered up and was no longer using drugs. The husband continued to use drugs and the sexual assault of the wife by the husband continued until the woman escaped the conjugal home with her two children and left for Virginia.

Continue reading

In this custody proceeding, a New York Family Lawyer said that, the Family Court, Bronx, awarded petitioner mother sole physical and legal custody of the parties’ child dismissed respondent father’s petitions based on violations of temporary orders of visitation, denied respondent’s second motion to dismiss the child custody petition, and issued a five-year order of protection forbidding respondent from exercising any corporal punishment against the child. A Bronx Order of Protection Lawyer said that defendant father appealed the decision.

The issue in this case is whether the Family Court erred in awarding the sole physical and legal custody of the child to the petitioner mother.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the Court said that, with regard to deprivation of respondent’s visitation rights, he had ample opportunity to present evidence of petitioner’s violations during the custody trial, but failed to do so. Moreover, the record indicates that petitioner supported the child’s regular and frequent visits with her father. Denial of respondent’s request for a subpoena was a proper exercise of discretion. There is no indication in the record that petitioner was using illegal drugs or had used them in the recent past, or that she had any medical or psychological condition that might negatively impact on her care for the child.

Continue reading

First Case:

On or about 20 December 2010, a Family Court in Bronx County issued an order which, upon the mother’s default at a combined fact-finding and dispositional hearing, terminated the mother’s parental rights to the subject child upon a finding of permanent neglect, and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption. A New York Family Lawyer said that thereafter, the respondent mother moved to vacate the order of disposition. On or about 21 March 2011, the same court denied the said motion. Thus, an appeal of the said denial followed.

The court finds that the denial must be affirmed, without costs; the appeal must be dismissed, without costs, as taken from a non-appealable paper.

Continue reading

Dolores Lamb, the petitioner in this case is seeking support from the respondent for herself and her three children. The respondent in this case is Charles Lamb. The case is being heard in the Family Court in the City of New York located in New York County.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said this case provides and interesting set of circumstances as brought forth by the respondent. The respondent was married to the petitioner in a ceremony held in Connecticut on the 23 of September, 1954. At this particular time, the respondent’s former wife “Marjorie” was still alive, but mentally incompetent and homed in an institution.

Continue reading

This is a case being heard in the Special Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Nassau County. The plaintiff in the case is Audrey Feinberg and the defendant in the case is Herbert Feinberg. The action that is before the court was instituted by the plaintiff who is seeking to set aside a consensual migratory divorce that was obtained in a court located in the Dominican Republic as well as the separation agreement.

Plaintiff Argument

The plaintiff has alleged that in order to induce her into a separation agreement and execute a power of attorney to authorize counsel to appear on her behalf in a divorce action in the Dominican Republic court, the defendant falsely represented his financial worth. The attorney for the plaintiff requested the tax returns of the defendant and three years of tax returns were provided. However, the plaintiff argues that the defendant concealed the existence of negotiations for the sale of the family’s wine business, Monsieur Henri Company, in which the defendant has a third interest.

Continue reading

This is a case being heard in front of the Supreme Court of Westchester County. The plaintiff in the case is Agnes Mary Clark Alfaro. The defendant of the case is Carl E. Alfaro. The action before the court is for a separation based on the grounds of abandonment, non support, and cruelty. A New York Family Lawyer said the action also seeks to declare a Mexican divorce obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff on the fifteenth of October 1954 as invalid. The couple has three children together.

Case Background

Before the year 1940, the defendant was married to another woman. On the 23rd of January, 1940, he obtained a divorce from his former wife. On the 29th of January, 1940, he married the plaintiff in Mexico. The plaintiff claims that she married the defendant in Mexico because he was working there and had stated that he may in fact decide to reside there. The plaintiff also states that the defendant was present in the divorce proceedings that took place in Mexico.

Continue reading

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Queens County. The case involves the plaintiff John Doe and the defendant Jane Doe. A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff has motion for the final decree of divorce to be vacated on the grounds that the couple is attempting reconciliation. The Court is asked to determine if there is a benefit to the motion for allowing a vacatur of the final judgment that was made in this case or if the motion should be denied on the grounds of finality.

Case Background

The couple, John and Jane Doe, was married in 2005 in the state of Rhode Island. The couple does not have any children. In 2009, the husband filed for divorce on grounds of abandonment. A New York Custody Lawyer said the husband stated that the wife had left the marital home located in Queens County, New York and was currently residing in Rhode Island.

Continue reading

Rhonda Covington is the appellant in this case and Carlton Walker is the respondent. This case is being heard in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York. The issue that is being brought before the court is whether the cause of action made by the plaintiff for a divorce on the grounds of imprisonment is barred by the five year statute of limitations as it was commenced sixteen years after the defendant was confined.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the couple in this case was married in May of 1983. In January of 1984, the defendant was arrested for the robbery and shooting death of a cab driver. He was convicted in 1985 for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and murder in the second degree. He was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life. The defendant has been imprisoned since he was first arrested. The plaintiff was convicted for the same crimes as the defendant is also in prison.

Continue reading