NY Slip Op 2017 00651
February 1, 2017
This is a guardianship proceeding held pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law Article 81. In this case, Dimitrios Spanos a successor guardian for Yolanda TM sought to settle his account. He is appealing from and Order of the Supreme Court entered on 12/12/13 in Queens County. This ruling awarded him commissions for his guardianship (SCPA 2307(1) in the amount of $14, 496 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,823.
2015 NY Slip Op 04676
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and remitted to Family Court.
Eleven year old Delroy was involved in a juvenile delinquency hearing that involved assault and attempted assault in the first, second, third degree. These charges arose during an incident with a 12 year old victim complainant, who was stabbed during an altercation. A motion was made to suppress a statement made to officers and a knife that was recovered at the scene. The testimony in question involved an interview with Delroy’s sister saying that her brother had been bullied, the two boys had fought, and Deloy had stabbed the victim.
2012 New York Slip Op 50257
The question before the court is whether an admission and positive toxicology report for marijuana use is enough to establish neglect according to the Family Court Act 1012 (f)(1)(B) or Section 1046 (a)(iii). It is the contention of the Administrator of Children Services (ACS) that it is. The ACS claims that the mother’s use of marijuana establishes a case for parental wrongdoing and that a prima facie case isn’t defended by merely showing that the children weren’t harmed. The ACS said that dismissing the petition because of its failure to prevent any tangible evidence of harm is an error of law.
The mother contends that her infant’s positive toxicology for marijuana is in and of itself insufficient proof. It doesn’t prove that the child was harmed or put in any kind of danger. She claims that relying only on the report fails to make a causative connection to the surrounding circumstances.
2016 NY Slip Op. 08222
Decision
This appeal was brought by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court of Queens County, October 16, 2014. The order granted portions of the motion which awarded child support and maintenance payments in the amount of $4,887. And $1965. Respectively.
NY Slip Op 08198
December 7,2016
This is an appeal by the defendant for portions of a divorce judgement from the Supreme Court in Nassau County. The judge denied the defendant’s application for a separate property credit, and order the defendant to pay 2/3 of a HELOC, imputed the defendant’s income at $90K when figuring child support, failed to award spousal maintenance, and ordered the defendant to pay college costs. The judgement also denied equitable distribution of the Plaintiff’s Estee Lauder stock option, and was ordered to pay assessed arrears in the amount of $107K.
2016 Slip Op. 08192
December 7, 2016
This case is an appeal by the plaintiff for an order by the Supreme Court. One order granted the plaintiff’s motion to put the action on calendar for a settlement conference and ask for the dismissal of a complaint against the defendant and Anne Hoffman. This order denied the plaintiff the opportunity to reargue a motion requesting a dismissal of the complaint, insofar as it is asserted against Helena Behan.
May 4, 2016
Judge Spina commented that in the Guardianship of V.V. 470 Mass 590 (2015) the court ruled that a parent who has a minor child subject to a guardianship proceeding pursuant to G.L. c. 190B. Sec. 5-206 and can’t afford a lawyer does indeed have a right to counsel. The issue here is if a parent has a right to counsel when a parent files a petition to have a guardian removed, or the terms are modified. He court finds that a parent has a right to counsel when they file a petition to have a guardian removed, or the terms modified. The court finds that a parent has a right to counsel for those types of proceedings. The court also offers guidance to the probate and family court, when these guardianship issues occur and to create standards regarding right to counsel.
The plaintiffs are mothers of children where guardians have been appointed pursuant to G.L. c. 190B, Sec. 5-206. They brought this action in County Court, contesting a policy put in place by the Chief Justice of Probate and Family Court regarding the appointment of counsel in guardianship proceedings (G.L. 190B). They challenged a memorandum that was released to the court personnel regarding this issue.
Jeffery Kaplan, Esq. of Levine & Kaplan for Petitioner
Ari Gourvitz, Esq. of Gourvitz and Grourvitz for Respondent
The parents jointly sought child custody to the Petitioner mother, and voluntary termination and surrender of the father’s parental rights. At the time of the hearing the child was one year old.
