html
New York child custody, Manhattan child custody, Brooklyn child custody Lawyer
html
Divorce Lawyer. New York child custody, Manhattan child custody, Brooklyn child custody Lawyer.
html
Divorce Lawyer. New York child custody, Manhattan child custody, Brooklyn child custody Lawyer.

Recent Cases Affecting New York Divorce Law


How the new New York Spousal Support Statute Applies to Your Case
May 14, 2012

Lisa Beth Older, Esq. an attorney in New York, cites a case on point as to how  the new New York spousal support statute applies to your case:

KHAIRA v. KHAIRA

Camille KHAIRA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Jasvinder Singh KHAIRA, Defendant–Appellant.

-- February 07, 2012

DAVID B. SAXE, J.P., JOHN W. SWEENY, JR., LELAND G. DeGRASSE, SALLIE MANZANET–DANIELS, NELSON S. ROMÁN, JJ.

Moses Preston & Ziegelman, LLP, New York (Robert M. Preston and Judith Ackerman of counsel), for appellant.Mayerson Stutman Abramowitz, LLP, New York (Harold A. Mayerson and Stephen A. Zorn of counsel), for respondent.

This appeal gives us the opportunity to consider the new guidelines for awards of temporary spousal maintenance under Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5–a), particularly with regard to the circumstances in which the court may deviate from the guideline amount derived by formula (the presumptive award), and the procedures that must be undertaken to do so.

The parties married on July 8, 2006, having jointly purchased the marital residence the month before. They have two sons, born December 25, 2007 and December 1, 2009. The wife also has a son from a previous marriage, born February 1, 1992. In September of 2010, the husband voluntarily moved out of the marital residence, and in October 2010, the wife commenced this divorce proceeding. She moved for pendente lite support, asking for monthly maintenance of $11,500 and child support of $7,290, and a direction that the husband directly pay the carrying costs on the marital residence, child care expenses, and all health care expenses for the family.


 
Lisa Beth Older New York, a Brooklyn Divorce Lawyer, comments on the March 2011 amendment to the Domestic Relations law
February 3, 2012

Amendment DRL240(1) (a) and its impact on Battered woman's Syndrome: Abuse as a Mandatory Factor in "Best Interests" analysis
 
In March 2011 the Domestic Relations law was amended in recognition of the impact spousal abuse has on the best interest of children, requiring that the court consider the factor and affect domestic violence has upon the best interests of the child analysis. The Hallmark of the DRL amendment appears to mandate that a lower Court consider allegations of abuse as a statutory factor in its "best interests" analysis.  DRL Section 240(1); 12 N.Y.Prac. New York Law of Domestic Relations § 21:38. This statute has a precondition that said allegations be set forth in a pleading. DRL 240(1). In interpreting DRL 240 (1)(a) courts have held that when violence occurs on multiple occasions in the presence of a child it is proper to award sole custody to the other parent. Jasmine Gillo v. Williams, 2008 WL 8013230 (N.Y.Fam.Ct.), 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 33607(U); also see Khaykin v. Kanayeva, 47 A.D.3d 817 [2d Dept 2008]; Drew v. Gillin, 17 A.D.3d 719 [3d Dept 2005]; Assini v. Assini, 11 A.D.3d 417 [2d Dept 2004]; Matter of Scott JJ, 280 A.D.2d 4[3d Dept 2001]).Violent threatening spouses denigrated a parent’s future abilities to provide appropriate guidance to children. In the case of Neail v. Deshane, 19 A.D.3d 758, 796 N.Y.S.2d 435 (3d Dep’t 2005) 5 N.Y.3d 711, 806 N.Y.S.2d 161, 840 N.E.2d 130 (2005) the Court awarded the Father custody due because the mother had serious anger management problems. In the case of COSTIGAN v. RENNER, 76 A.D.3d 1039 (2nd Dept. September 28, 2010) the Second Department held it is well settled that when a children reside in a residence of domestic violence they themselves become secondary victims and are likely to suffer psychological injury. The Court also held that the children thus learn morally challenged precepts that abusive behaviors are the a means to an acceptable end., citing to Matter of Wissink v. Wissink, 301 A.D.2d 36, 40, 749 N.Y.S.2d 550. It further held that acts of domestic violence against the perpetrator should not be awarded custody, citing to Matter of DeJesus v. Tinoco, 267 A.D.2d 308, 308, 699 N.Y.S.2d 905 and  Matter of Wissink v. Wissink, 301 A.D.2d at 40, 749 N.Y.S.2d 550

 
Interfering with a Father's Visitation Rights results in a change of Custody Agreement
January 13, 2012

Lisa Beth Older, Esq. a New York Family Law lawyer,  discusses a recent custody case coming out of the Supreme Court appellate court, Third Department in June 2011 which upheld the lower Family Court Decision to take custody away from the Mother and half sibling on the below facts.
 
The Court held that it was wrong of the Mother to interfere with the father's visitation rights by not following the visitation schedule, by acting inappropriately in front of the children, and by her unwillingness to foster a strong relationship between the child and the father.  Furthermore the Mother had her boyfriend act as the father in substitution of the natural father, and she also  relocated causing the child to change schools, thus not including the father's involvement in the child's life. In this case they actually separated siblings.
 
Here is the full Decision:
 
Timothy Keefe v. Ginger Adams 2011 NY Slip Op 04558 [85 AD3d 1225]:
 
Mercure, J.P. Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Ulster County (McGinty, J.), entered April 12, 2010 and April 14, 2010, which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in five proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.
 
The parties are the parents of a son, born in 2002. Pursuant to a May 2007 custody order entered on consent, the parties shared joint legal custody, with respondent (hereinafter the mother) having primary physical custody and petitioner (hereinafter the father) having visitation on alternating weekends and holidays. In August 2009, the father petitioned to modify the custody arrangement, alleging, among other things, that the mother had moved out of the county without his consent and that she was consistently late when exchanging the child at the drop-off location. The mother then filed a violation petition and two modification petitions alleging, among other things, that the father yelled at her in a public place and in front of the child, and left the child in the care of others without informing her. The father followed with a violation petition based upon the mother's alleged lateness when exchanging the child. [*2]

 
Case of the Fourth Department of the State of New York on Child Abuse
December 20, 2011

New York Divorce Laywer posts case of the Fourth Department of the State of New York on child abuse
 
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1070
CAF 10-01876
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.
IN THE MATTER OF CHELSEY B.
------------------------------------------
ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;
MICHAEL W., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
(APPEAL NO. 1.)
CHARLES J. GREENBERG, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
JENNIFER M. LORENZ, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, LANCASTER, FOR CHELSEY B.
 
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia A. Maxwell, J.), entered October 7, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, inter alia, determined the
subject child to be severely abused.
 
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.