Uncategorized

Published on: May 21, 2016

Wife Claims Husband Causes Her Undue Stress

by Stephen Bilkis

In this family case, the parties were married in August 1973. The wife is presently 52 years of age and the husband is presently 56 years of age. On the date of their marriage, plaintiff was 22 years of age and a college graduate. Defendant was then 18 years of age and a high school graduate. During the course of the marriage, four children were born to the parties, to wit: the eldest daughter, age 32; the eldest son, age 26; the youngest son, age 20; and the youngest daughter, age 13. The two youngest children, the youngest son (presently age 20) and the youngest daughter, remain unemancipated. During the course of the litigation the youngest son resided in Israel or was a resident student at A university.

The husband commenced this action in December 2004 after the wife withdrew an action commenced in November 2004. The parties litigated in Family Court from November 10, 2004, through January 31, 2005. The husband also brought a writ of habeas corpus under a separate index number against the wife and her mother which was dismissed. The Family Court action was consolidated into the Supreme Court action, on consent. The husband was granted a divorce, on consent, after proof, on June 10, 2005, on the grounds of constructive abandonment and shortly thereafter the husband gave the wife a Jewish divorce. A law guardian, was appointed for the youngest daughter, and a neutral forensic evaluator was appointed by the court.

A Manhattan Family Lawyer said that hereafter, the day set for trial on the issue of custody, all issues of custody and visitation were resolved by stipulation on the record. The agreement inter alia provided that the parties would share joint decision making of the youngest daughter, age 13, that the wife would have physical custody, there would be a parent coordinator and that the husband, the wife and child would separately enroll in therapy. The wife voluntarily, without prejudice, withdrew her request for a temporary order of protection and same was vacated, on consent. The agreement further provided for supervised visitation and a mechanism for the child and father to re-establish their relationship.

Published on: May 20, 2016

Petitioner Files For Custody of Infant

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner Spouses filed a custody petition for a baby on April 26, 2004. Named as respondents are the unidentified birth parents, and the Children’s Services. The latter has had temporary custody of the baby since March 1st when a neglect petition was filed against the parents, alleging that the baby, then about two days old, had been found abandoned in a building hallway on February 24, 2004, and that neither parent had come forward to claim the rights and responsibilities of parenthood.

This court held a fact-finding hearing on April 28 and found that the unidentified parents neglected and abandoned the baby, as defined in Family Court Act § 1012. The court learned on the same day that the spouses had petitioned for custody. Based on a favorable report indicating that the spouses, both of whom are New York Police Department (NYPD) sergeants, have a safe home, and have raised their own children satisfactorily, the court granted them temporary visitation and adjourned the dispositional hearing in order to receive additional information regarding the baby’s foster home and the petitioner’s visitation.

Shortly thereafter, the children services moved to dismiss the custody petition, arguing that they lacked standing to seek custody of the baby, to whom they are not related and who has never lived with them. The Children Services also sought to vacate the order permitting the spouses to visit.

Published on: May 19, 2016

Mother Seeks Temporary Child Custody

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of the cross motion of the Attorney for the Children seeking, inter alia an order granting the mother temporary child custody of the parties’ three younger children, and directing that the transcripts of the in camera interviews with the child conducted by the Court on April 30, 2010 remain confidential.

A New York Custody Lawyer said this is a custody proceeding brought on by the mother’s petition for custody of three of the parties’ four children. The children have resided primarily with their father since the beginning of November 2007 when, according to the father, the mother left but, according to the mother, the father locked her out of the family home.

A Kings County Child Visitation Lawyer said that, on April 12, 2010, the Attorney for the Children citing child-protective concerns, requested that the Court interview the children in camera. Counsel for the mother and the father did not object, although the father’s attorney asked to be provided a transcript of the interviews, to which the AFC strenuously objected. I determined, without objection, to hold the in camera interviews but to withhold the transcripts of those interviews from the parents and their attorneys in order to afford the AFC an opportunity to file a motion to keep them confidential and counsel for each parent to respond. On April 30, 2010, I met separately the children. The children’s attorney was present during each of the interviews; the parents and their attorneys were not.

Published on: February 13, 2016

Husband Charged with Harrassment of His Wife

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant has been charged with several violations of the Penal Law in that he engaged in a course of conduct whereby he did harass, threaten and endanger his wife’s life.

The complainant wife pursuant to Section 812 of the Family Court Act as amended L.1977, c. 499, Sec. 1, and effective September 1, 1977, did exercise her right to proceed with a complaint in the District Court as opposed to the Family Court. As a result defendant husband now faces criminal liability.

The defendant now moves for a dismissal of the three informations pursuant to Section 170.35 of the Criminal Procedure Law, alleging the informations are defective in that this Court is without jurisdiction of the offenses charged.

Published on: March 23, 2015

Court Decides Complicated Neglect Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter the Grievance Committee) served the respondent with a petition dated August 23, 2007, containing nine charges of professional misconduct. After a preliminary conference the Special Referee sustained charges one through six but found that charges seven through nine had not been established by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee’s report. The respondent cross-moves to confirm the Special Referee’s report with respect to charges seven, eight, and nine and to disaffirm with respect to charges two, four, five, and six.

A charge one alleges that the respondent allowed his professional judgment on behalf of his clients to be affected by his own financial, business, property, or personal interests in that during the course of his representation of two clients (hereinafter the clients) in a child neglect matter pending in Family Court, he had the clients convey title to their home to him in order to prevent a foreclosure sale of the property and, thereafter, sought to evict them while continuing to represent them in the Family Court matter, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility.

Published on: September 4, 2014

Wife Opposes Husband’s Motion to Modify Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said this is a matrimonial action where plaintiff, the wife, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated 10 November 1982, which granted defendant husband’s motion to modify the visitation provisions of a judgment of divorce to eliminate plaintiff’s visitation with the parties’ son to the extent of reducing her visitation rights and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to vacate the defendant’s motion. The order appealed from allows the plaintiff to visit with her son after submission to the court of proposed visitation dates and only with strict supervision. The appellate court affirms the said order, with costs, and states its reasons as follows:

First, plaintiff should be allowed visitation with the child. The Special Term’s finding that plaintiff’s exercise of her right of visitation with her son is not detrimental to the welfare of the child is actually supported by the record. Thus, it is proper to deny the defendant’s motion insofar as it sought to eliminate all visitation rights

.

Published on: August 8, 2014

Court Denies Father’s Motion for Sole Custody

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, which, without a hearing, denied his petition, in effect, to modify the custody and child visitation provisions of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Queens County, so as to award him sole custody of the subject child, and denied his petition, in effect, to hold the mother in contempt based on her alleged willful violation of a child visitation order of the same court.

A Nassau County Family lawyer said that three weeks after denying the father’s petition for sole custody of the subject child, the Family Court conducted a full evidentiary hearing on the mother’s petition for custody. Thereafter, the Family Court issued a final order of custody and child visitation granting the parties joint legal custody, with residential custody to the mother.

“It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the power of a court to declare the law only arises out of, and is limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actually controverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal”. “In general an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment”.

Published on: May 10, 2014

family

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an action for a divorce and ancillary relief wherein the plaintiff former wife appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County entered 26 July 2005, which, upon a decision of the same court dated 8 March 2005, after remittitur from this Court, inter alia, denied her an award of retroactive maintenance and failed to award interest on the retroactive child support award.

The defendant former husband cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same judgment as failed to credit him for certain payments made during the pendency of the action, awarded retroactive child support in the sum of $93,250, failed to value his interest in his law practice in accordance with the recommendation of the court-appointed expert, directed him to pay maintenance in the amount of $42,000 per year for a period of 15 years and $24,000 per year thereafter until the death of either party, and awarded compound interest of 1.5% per month on any untimely distributive award payments.

The court modifies the judgment, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof awarding compound interest of 1.5% per month on any untimely distributive award payments, and substituting therefor a provision awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum on any untimely distributive award payments, by deleting the provision thereof awarding retroactive child support in the sum of $93,250, and by deleting the provision thereof denying the plaintiff an award of retroactive maintenance.

Published on: January 8, 2013

Can an Orthodox Jewish Divorce bar a Divorce in New York?

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being held before the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County. The issue involves the question of whether or not the delivery of an Orthodox Jewish divorce, called a “Get” can be registered in the state of Israel and act as a bar for litigation pertaining to a divorce in the state of New York. The plaintiff in this particular case is Alexander Tsirlin and the defendant of the case is Alla Tsirlin.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff husband began this action on the 11th of July, 2006 to obtain a divorce on the ground of abandonment and an order to grant the couple joint custody of their son Jonathon, with the wife obtaining physical custody and a set visitation schedule provided to the husband. He also requested a set amount of child support in accordance with child support standards.

Published on: November 13, 2012

child visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case

On 20 December 1988, a boy was born, the herein subject child. On 17 January 1989, he came under the care and custody of petitioner-appellant. On 6 March 1991, the Child Welfare Agency (CWA) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the subject child’s natural parents on the grounds of abandonment and permanent neglect. A New York Family Lawyer said that on 9 July 1992, the mother who is not a party to the herein appeal, had her parental rights terminated on the ground of abandonment. Prior to the fact-finding hearing concerning the respondent father, the agency withdrew the allegations of permanent neglect and proceeded on the abandonment cause of action alone. Meanwhile, respondent father was arrested approximately one month after his son’s birth and remains incarcerated to date. It is undisputed that respondent father made no contact with his son or the agency between the date of his arrest and the filing of the petition more than two years later. Nonetheless, after a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that respondent father proved that he did everything he could to locate his son; that petitioner discouraged contact between respondent father and his son; and that petitioner made no attempt to notify respondent father as to the whereabouts of his son. Thus, an appeal of the said order of the court followed.

The Ruling of the Court: