New York Family Law Blog

Published on: March 31, 2019

Court Rules on Violation of Temporary Orders for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

T v T

In this case, the family court determined that the Respondent violated two temporary Orders for Protection. It was found that the court acted properly in entering an order for protection after these findings.

The Petitioner filed an offense petition against the Respondent, She received a temporary Order for Protection. While that order was pending, the court found that the Respondent had violations on two temporary orders. The court dismissed the family offense order but sustained the violation of the petitions and issued a one year order for protection. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Published on: January 13, 2019

Court Discussed Alleged Mistreatment of Child During Shoplifting Incident

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of N. v NY Office of Children & Family Services

June 18, 2018

NY Slip Op 04379

Published on: December 4, 2018

Mother Appeals Neglect Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of CW

2018 NY Slip Op 06546

October 3, 2018

Published on: November 4, 2018

Court Decides if ACS Made Reasonable Efforts to Reunite Family

by Stephen Bilkis

In Re L.

2018 NY Slip Op. 06966

October 18, 2018

Published on: September 4, 2018

Appellate Court is Reluctant to Disturb the Ruling of the Family Court

by Stephen Bilkis

W v. W

2018 NY Slip Op 05956

August 29, 2018

Published on: July 16, 2018

Court Hears Case Regarding Child Neglect

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Michael A.

2018 NY Slip Op 05154

July 11, 2018

Published on: June 1, 2018

Attorney Fees Award Reversed by the Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

Greco v Greco

2018 NY Slip Op 03509

May 16, 2018

Published on: May 16, 2018

Matter of Lisa T v King T

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the petitioner filed against the respondent to whom she is married and has one child. The petitioner received a temporary order for protection against the respondent. This was ordered to direct the respondent to cease from all communications with the petitioner, except those relating to the care of the child. Through various court appearances, the order was extended. The petitioner filed various violation petitions.

The violation petitions were consolidated. The court concluded that she failed to prove a family offense petition, but the court sustained the violation petition and issued a one-year final protection order.

The respondent appealed, and the appellate court affirmed. One dissenting justice claimed that the family court lacked jurisdiction for the final order because the family offense petition had been dismissed [147 AD3d 675]. The court certified to this court regarding this issue.