New York Divorce and Family Law Blog

important New Decisions - February 12, 2012

2012-02-12T14:13:00.003-05:00

Child Support Cap Raised from $130,000 to $136,000

The "combined parental income amount" to be utilized in calculating child support orders has increased from $130,000 to $136,000 effective January 31, 2012. (See Child Support Worksheet (Form UD-8) revised January 2012). The amount of the "combined parental income" is established by Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (2) as the amount set forth in Social Services Law § 111-I (2) (b). Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (2) provides that the amount established shall be multiplied by the appropriate child support percentage and such amount shall be prorated in the same proportion as each parent's income is to the combined parental income. Social Services Law § 111-I (2)(b) provides that the 　$130,000 cap is increased automatically on January 31, 2012 and on January 31 every two years thereafter by the product of the average annual percentage changes in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) as published by the United States department of labor bureau of labor statistics for the two year period rounded to the nearest one thousand dollars. (See Bureau of Labor Statistics for its publications at http://www.bls.gov)

First Department Holds That Double Dipping Is Not Allowed Under Temporary Maintenance Guidelines
In Khaira v Khaira, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2012 WL 371997 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.) the Appellate Division, in an opinion by Justice Saxe, considered the 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. They had two sons, and the wife had a son from a previous marriage. In September of 2010, the husband voluntarily moved out of the marital residence, and in October 2010, the wife commenced the 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.

The court observed that to determine temporary maintenance, the motion court had to apply Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(5-a), which had become effective on October 12, 2010. The court determined the presumptive award to be $11,500 per month, awarded the wife $13,870 in unallocated spousal and child support, tax deductible to the husband, and required the husband to directly pay to the lender the monthly mortgage payments on the marital residence in which the wife and the children continue to reside, and the health care insurance premiums and unreimbursed health care expenses for the family, including his stepson. It also directed the husband to pay the wife interim counsel fees of $42,000.

On appeal, the husband contended that the motion court awarded the wife an excessive sum because it failed to consider his actual, documented net monthly income and cash flow, and incorrectly calculated his annual income by including non-recurring earnings such as a one-time bonus, and illiquid, noncash equity compensation. He challenged the counsel fee award on the ground that the wife's mother guaranteed her counsel fee obligation, and counsel has been paid in full to date. He also challenged the directive that he pay the health care expenses of his stepson.

Justice Saxe observed that Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(5-a) reflects a substantial change in the Legislature's approach to temporary maintenance. The previous spousal maintenance provision gave the court great leeway, directing only in general terms that it order maintenance"in such amount as justice requires," considering the parties' standard of living during the marriage, the reasonable needs of the non-monied spouse and the monied spouse's ability to pay, and with regard to a list of factors such as the parties' respective earning capacities (former DRL 236[B][6] ). Courts applying that provision observed that pendente lite maintenance was awarded to "tide over the more needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate distribution and to ensure that a needy spouse is provided with funds for his or her support and reasonable needs" The new provision, rather than aiming merely to "tide over" the non-monied spouse, creates a substantial presumptive entitlement. He noted that the motion court properly followed the initial procedures. It applied the $500,000 cap to the husband's income, and using $60,000 as the wife's income, based on the monthly payments she acknowledged receiving from her parents, performed the two calculations: for the first, it subtracted 20% of $60,000 ($12,000) from 30% of $500,000 ($150,000), arriving at $138,000; for the second, it calculated 40% of $560,000 ($224,000), then deducted $60,000, arriving at $164,000. It properly treated the lesser of these two calculations, $138,000, as the guideline amount. At that point, the court observed that the parties' 2008 joint income tax return reflected an adjusted gross income of $851,549, almost all from the husband's earnings at the investment firm the Blackstone Group, and that their 2009 tax return reflected an adjusted gross income of $1,063,426, also almost entirely from the husband's employment. However, it did not then proceed to explicitly discuss whether an additional amount of maintenance was warranted from the portion of the husband's income that exceeded the $500,000 cap, as required by 236(B)(5-a)(c)(2). Instead, the court next examined the wife's submitted monthly expense budget of approximately $21,267 and concluded that with the exception of claims for $1,000 for gifts and $225 for charitable contributions, the remainder ($20,041), which included $4,125 for the cost of a nanny, represented the wife's and the children's reasonable needs. In essence, the court simply ruled that the husband should pay the full amount of the wife's and the children's claimed needs, partly through his payment of the mortgage on the marital residence ($5,317) and the family's health care premiums and unreimbursed medical expenses ($855), and partly through monthly payments to the wife of $13,870. In other words, the court awarded the wife $20,041 in unallocated spousal and child support without setting out a calculation of appropriate child support and without discussing or even mentioning the factors in Domestic Relations Law 236[B][5-a][c][2] ).

In considering the husband's challenge to the award, the Court rejected his suggestion that his support obligation should have been calculated based solely on his base pay, without reference to his bonus, or that the court should have taken into consideration his net pay. The statute instructs the court to base the calculations on the payor's gross income as reported in his federal income tax return, and the motion court properly did exactly that, correctly treating the husband's bonuses as income and ignoring his reliance on his net income (which can be manipulated with deductions and deferred compensation). However, the motion court did not strictly comply with the requisites of Domestic Relations Law 236 (B)(5-a).

Justice Saxe observed that no language in either the new temporary maintenance provision or the CSSA specifically addresses whether the statutory formulas are intended to include the portion of the carrying costs of their residence attributable to the non-monied spouse and the children. The new law "does not factor in child support issues or payment of household expenses. In the absence of a specific reference to the carrying charges for the marital residence, the Court considered it reasonable and logical to view the formula adopted by the new maintenance provision as covering all the spouse's basic living expenses, including housing costs as well as the costs of food and clothing and other usual expenses. The Court believed that the new approach of calculating spousal support payments to the non-monied spouse by means of a formula is intended to arrive at the amount that will cover all the payee's presumptive reasonable expenses. By calculating the guideline amount and then simply adding the direct mortgage payment on top of that, the motion court awarded more than the amount reached by the formula, without providing the required explanation.

Justice Saxe indicated that it is possible that directing payment above and beyond the guideline amount may be appropriate in certain situations. For instance, the direct mortgage payment might be justifiable as additional support when the payor's income exceeds $500,000 and the applicable factors listed in Domestic Relations Law 236 (B)(5-a)(c)(2)(a) are taken into account; or, depending on the size of the mortgage payment, perhaps only part of it should be treated as the payee's housing costs, and the remainder should be treated as the upkeep of a marital investment. He suggested that perhaps there are other reasons why the guideline amount is unjust or inappropriate. "It may well be that in this case, consideration of the enumerated factors, such as the stark difference in the parties' current earning capacities, their standard of living during the marriage, and the need to pay for day care, would justify the motion court's direction that the husband pay as additional maintenance a specified portion of his income beyond the $500,000 cap."

Because the statute expressly requires the court to both make and explain that determination (DRL 236[B][5-a][c][2][b] ), the Appellate Division could not permit the award to remain as it stood. While the ultimate support award may well be appropriate, it must be appropriately supported and explained. The Court therefore modified so as to vacate the support award and remanded the matter for a reconsideration of the award in light of the directives of Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(5-a). It also vacated the portion of the order that placed responsibility on the husband for his stepson's health care insurance and unreimbursed health care expenses. There was no allegation that the stepson was a recipient of public assistance or that he was in danger of becoming a public charge, and no other legal rationale for imposing that obligation on the husband.

The Court upheld the award of counsel fees to the wife as the "less monied spouse" (Domestic Relations Law 237[a] ). Justice Saxe observed that the statute provides that "[p]ayment of any retainer fees to the attorney for the petitioning party shall not preclude any awards of fees and expenses to an applicant which would otherwise be allowed under this section"; the husband's argument that no award of fees was appropriate because the wife's mother paid her attorney's retainer fee failed to rebut the presumption in favor of the award.

Comment:

Counsel for the spouse paying temporary maintenance should request, in his opposing papers, that the temporary maintenance order contain a provision directed the spouse who is awarded temporary maintenance to pay the "carrying costs of the marital residence" . Without such a direction, the spouse receiving the temporary maintenance award will not be under any court ordered obligation to pay those expenses, even though the temporary maintenance award includes sums for their payment, and the credit rating of the payyor spouse may suffer or the mortgage may go into foreclosure..

Counsel for a spouse seeking temporary maintenance should to make sure, in preparing an application for temporary support, that the "presumptive award" will be enough to permit his client to pay the "carrying costs of the marital residence." The application for temporary maintenance should ask the court to specify what items are considered "carrying costs of the marital residence".

important New Decisions - February 12, 2012

2012-02-12T13:44:00.000-05:00

Threat to Cancel Wedding Is Not Duress.

In Ramunno v Ramunno, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2012 WL 266464 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.) Plaintiff commenced a action seeking a determination that the parties' Antenuptial Agreement was null and void on the grounds of , inter alia, duress. The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court property determined that defendant's threat to cancel the wedding unless plaintiff signed the agreement did not amount to duress (citing Colello v. Colello, 9 AD3d 855). The Appellate Division held that court erred, however, in sua sponte determining that plaintiff could not, prior to the marriage, waive her right to equitable distribution of defendant's pension (citing Strong v. Dubin, 75 AD3d 66, 72-73) or her right to maintenance (DRL 236[B][3][3] ), and modified the order accordingly.

Husband's Motion to Modify Divorce Judgment to Conform to Agreement Not Barred by the Doctrine of Laches, Although He Waited Eight Years to Make the Motion

In Markell v Markell--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2012 WL 234084 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) in a stipulation of settlement dated May 14, 2002, the plaintiff former wife and the defendant former husband agreed, inter alia, that the defendant would pay child support on the fifteenth day of each month, and that unreimbursed health care expenses for their children would be divided equally after the plaintiff paid the initial sum of $500 per child. The Supreme Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated December 10, 2002, which reflected this agreement. However, the judgment of divorce, which was entered on December 10, 2002, provided that the defendant was to pay child support on the first day of each month and two thirds of the children's unreimbursed health care expenses after the plaintiff paid the initial $500 per child. On or about December 10, 2010, the defendant moved to modify the judgment of divorce to "accurately reflect the provisions of the December 10, 2002 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and [the] parties' May 14, 2002 Stipulation of Settlement." The Supreme Court denied the motion and, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination. The Supreme Court determined that the husband's motion to modify the judgment was barred by the doctrine of laches, in that he waited eight years to make the motion.
The Appellate Division modified the order made upon reargument. It observed that the doctrine of laches is an equitable doctrine which bars the enforcement of a right where there has been an unreasonable and inexcusable delay that results in prejudice to a party. The mere lapse of time without a showing of prejudice will not sustain a defense of laches. In addition, there must be a change in circumstances making it inequitable to grant the relief sought. Notably, prejudice may be established by a showing of injury, change of position, loss of evidence, or some other disadvantage resulting from the delay ( Skrodelis v. Norbergs, 272 A.D.2d at 316-317). In support of his motion, the defendant demonstrated that the subject provisions of the judgment were the result of a clerical error, as the parties had been adhering to the terms of the stipulation of settlement for approximately eight years, and that the plaintiff had only recently informed him at a Family Court proceeding that the judgment contained terms different from those in the stipulation of settlement and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. In opposition, the plaintiff conceded that the parties had been complying with their stipulation of settlement since it was executed in May 2002. Since the parties had been operating under the terms of the stipulation of settlement for approximately eight years prior to the husband's motion, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances that would render inequitable the relief sought by the defendant. Further, the plaintiff failed to show that she would be prejudiced by a modification of the judgment to accurately reflect the provisions contained in the stipulation of settlement and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law .

Court Should Not Rely on New Statutory Formula in Domestic Relations Law 236(b)(5-a) in Actions Commenced Prior to its Effective Date
In Truglia v Truglia, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2012 WL 233765 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division held that in determining an award of pendente lite maintenance, a court should not rely on the new statutory formula in Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(5-a) in actions, such as this one, commenced prior to its effective date (see Ingersoll v. Ingersoll, 86 AD3d 684, 685). Here, however, the Supreme Court's award, while erroneously arrived at using the new statutory formula, was upheld in accordance with the prior standard under former Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(6)(a). The award of pendente lite maintenance reflected " 'an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse... with due regard for the preseparation standard of living.

Plaintiff Made Direct Contributions to the Business Established by Husband Prior to Parties Marriage by Serving as Company Bookkeeper for Approximately Seven Years
In Scher v Scher,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2012 WL 233930 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division held that contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff was entitled to share in the appreciated value of Home Companion Services of New York, Inc., which the defendant incorporated approximately three years prior to the marriage. Separate property includes "property acquired before [the] marriage" (Domestic Relations Law 236[B] [1][d][1] ), such as the business interest in Home Companion Services in this case, as well as "the increase in value of [such] separate property, except to the extent that such appreciation is due in part to the contributions or efforts of the other spouse" (Domestic Relations Law 236[B][1][d][3] ). In order for appreciation in the value of separate property to be deemed marital property subject to equitable distribution, the nontitled spouse must demonstrate the manner in which his or her contributions resulted in the increase in value and the amount of the increase which was attributable to his or her efforts. Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in finding that the plaintiff made no direct or indirect contributions to the appreciation of Home Companion Services which resulted in the increase in the value of the company. The evidence established that the plaintiff made direct contributions to the business by serving as the company bookkeeper for approximately seven years. The evidence further established that the defendant's active participation in expanding the business was aided and facilitated by the plaintiff's indirect contributions as homemaker and occasional caretaker of one of his children from a prior marriage. Moreover, the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff committed "wasteful dissipation" of marital assets in her role as bookkeeper. The Appellate Divison held that in light of the plaintiff's direct and indirect contributions, the Supreme Court should have awarded her 20% of the appreciated value of Home Companion Services. As the parties stipulated that the appreciated value over the course of the marriage amounted to $1,146,000, the plaintiff was entitled to an award of $229,200.
Furthermore, contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff was entitled to an equitable share of the appreciated value of the marital residence over the course of the marriage, notwithstanding that the residence was the separate property of the defendant until March 2005, when the property was transferred to the plaintiff and defendant as tenants by the entirety. The increase in the value of separate property remains separate property except to the extent that such appreciation is due in part to the contributions or efforts of the other spouse at which point the increase in value becomes marital property, in accordance with the rule that the definition of marital property is to be broadly construed, given the principle that a marriage is an economic partnership. The parties stipulated to a neutral appraisal which found that the marital residence had increased in value by $40,000 due to "active appreciation" in the form of physical improvements, and $300,000 due to "passive appreciation" in the form of "market forces, without regard to any improvements, except normal maintenance." Since the record established that the $340,000 in appreciation was attributable to the efforts of both parties, the plaintiff was entitled to share equitably in that increased value. Applying the plaintiff's 50% distributive share to the $340,000 in appreciation, she was entitled to an award of $170,000 for the appreciated value in the martial residence from the date of marriage. In light of the plaintiff's contributions, the Supreme Court should have awarded the parties equal shares in the increase in the value of the marital residence.
The Appellate Division found that Supreme Court erred in finding that the interest in Green Fields East Holding, LLC , which was held in the defendant's name, was the separate property of the defendant. Domestic Relations Law 236 defines "marital property" as "all property acquired by either or both spouses during the marriage and before the execution of a separation agreement or the commencement of a matrimonial action, regardless of the form in which title is held". Likewise, expenses incurred prior to the commencement of an action for a divorce are marital debt to be equally shared by the parties upon an offer of proof that they represent marital expenses. Where a party has paid the other party's share of what proves to be marital debt, reimbursement is required. As the interest in Green Fields was acquired during the marriage and before the commencement of the instant action, it was marital property. Likewise, a loan in the approximate amount of $239,000 which was taken out simultaneously, was marital debt. Since the defendant established that he paid the plaintiff's share of the marital debt by satisfying the loan, reimbursement was required. Taking the market value of the interest in Green Fields ($350,000), and applying the plaintiff's 50% distributive share thereto, she was entitled to an award of $55,500 after reimbursing the defendant the sum of $119,500 for satisfying her portion of the marital debt.
The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court erred in awarding the defendant a separate property credit in the amount of $32,719.59. Where separate property has been commingled with marital property, there is a presumption that the commingled funds constitute marital property. However, a party may overcome this presumption by presenting sufficient evidence that the source of the funds was separate property. Defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the source of the funds in the disputed profit-sharing plan account was separate property.
Considering the plaintiff's distributive award with respect to the marital residence and Home Companion Services and Green Fields, and in light of the plaintiff's direct and indirect contributions, an award of 10% of the value of the parties financial accounts, except a 529 college savings plan account, was equitable. It declined to disturb the provision of the judgment which directed that the defendant was to receive all the proceeds of the 529 college savings plan account.
In light of the distribution of the marital property and the plaintiff's own testimony regarding her expenses and earning capacity, the Appellate Division declined to disturb the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to future maintenance payments and declined to disturb the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of an attorney's fee. In light of the substantial distributive award in favor of the plaintiff, she was capable of paying for her own attorney.

important New Decisions - February 12, 2012

2012-02-12T13:42:00.003-05:00

Emergency Jurisdiction Continues Under UCCJEA for More than Three Years Where Family Court Not Satisfied With Steps to Protect Children Taken by Home State of New Mexico Court

In Matter of Bridget Y, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 6848352 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.), a 3-2 decison, the primary issue raised was whether Family Court properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction over the children pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 76-c (3). The parents Kenneth M.Y. and Rita S., appealed from an order of fact-finding and disposition determining, following a fact-finding hearing, that their children were neglected and placing the children in the custody of petitioner Chautauqua County Department of Social Services (DSS), and from a corrected order that denied their motion to vacate the order of fact-finding and disposition in appeal No. 1. The parents contended in both appeals that Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because New Mexico was the home state of the children, the neglect took place in New Mexico, and the parents were neither domiciliaries of nor otherwise significantly connected to New York State. The majority opinion concluded that the court properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 76-c (3) inasmuch as the children were imminent risk of harm, and concluded that both orders should be affirmed.
Respondent Kenneth M.Y. (father), the biological father of the children, married respondent Rita S. (stepmother), after the children's biological mother died in September 2001. The stepmother subsequently adopted the children. At some time between February 2007 and November 2007, the parents moved with the children from Pennsylvania to New Mexico. On August 7, 2008, the parents were arrested and were each charged with seven counts of child abuse with respect to the children. The charges stemmed from allegations that the parents left Kelly and Colleen, then 15 years old, and Michaela, then 12 years old, unsupervised in a bug-infested trailer miles away from the family residence, with limited supplies and inadequate food for a period of six to eight weeks. It was further alleged that the parents, as a form of discipline, had confined each of the children to their bedrooms or to the garage for days, weeks, or months at a time. While confined to the garage, the children received only water, bread, peanut butter and a sleeping bag, and they were permitted to use the bathroom once or twice a day.
As a result of the criminal charges, a Magistrate Court in New Mexico ordered the parents to avoid all contact with the children. In light of the no-contact order, on August 11, 2008 the parents placed the children in the care of their "maternal step-aunt and uncle", Robin S. and Paul S., who were respondents in appeal No. 2. Robin S. signed a "safety contract" with the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD), which stated that the parents voluntarily placed the children in the care of the aunt and uncle and that the parents were "still legally responsible for the [children's] well-being."Robin S. agreed to prohibit any contact between the parents and the children and to advise the Dona Ana County District Attorney's Office in the event that the parents attempted to remove the children from her care or otherwise to contact the children in any way. Robin S. transported the children to her home in Chautauqua County, New York.
By letter dated September 22, 2008, CYFD notified the parents that it had closed its file concerning the children. The letter further stated that "[t]he Department believes that the voluntary placement of the children with Robin S[.] was in the best interests of the children. However, [the parents] are free to make changes in that voluntary placement if they choose to as they remain the legal custodians of their children. The Department has no legal authority with respect to the children at this time. The safety contract between the Department and Robin S[.] was for placement purposes and does not prevent [the parents] from making changes to the children's placement."
According to the parents, they provided a copy of that letter to the aunt and uncle and notified them of their "intent to revoke the temporary placement of the minor children in their care and place the minor children with an appropriate guardian." The aunt and uncle refused to return the children, however, and instead filed a petition in Family Court seeking custody of the children. On October 1, 2008, the parents were indicted in New Mexico on six counts each of felony abuse of a child. On November 5, 2008, the parents filed a "Petition to Determine Custody Pursuant to the [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act]" in District Court in New Mexico against the aunt and uncle. The petition alleged, that the parents had resided in New Mexico since February 2007, that New Mexico was the home state of the children, and that the parents had placed the children with the aunt and uncle on a temporary basis "until a more suitable placement could be made or until [the parents'] conditions of release were modified or disposed of so that the children could be reunited with them." By their petition, the parents sought to place the children in the care and custody of a different temporary guardian. The parents thus sought an order confirming that they are the legal guardians of the children, and appointing a temporary guardian for the minor children until the criminal charges against them were resolved or their conditions of release were modified.
Two days later, Family Court issued a temporary order of custody asserting temporary emergency jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 76-c and granting temporary custody of the children to the aunt and uncle. DSS thereafter commenced the neglect proceeding in Family Court by petition filed November 13, 2008, alleging that the parents had neglected each of the children. At a Family Court appearance on November 24, 2008, an attorney for the parents appeared for the limited purpose of contesting jurisdiction, asserting that the parents were residents of New Mexico, that the alleged neglect took place in New Mexico, and that the children remained residents of New Mexico. Family Court continued to assert temporary emergency jurisdiction over the matter.
On December 10, 2008, the New Mexico court issued an "Order Assuming Jurisdiction." The New Mexico court determined that it had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, i.e., the children, noting that the children had resided with the parents in New Mexico since February 2007 and expressly stating that New Mexico is the home state of the children. With respect to the merits, the New Mexico court ruled that the parents "remain the sole legal custodians of the minor children, which includes the right to decide the temporary placement of the minor children with an appropriate guardian of their choosing."According to the New Mexico court, the parents wished to nominate Jim L. and Angela L., residents of Ohio, as temporary guardians of the children. To that end, the New Mexico court ordered the parents to arrange for a home study of the Ohio guardians, and to pay for the cost of the home study. Finally, the New Mexico court ruled that "[t]he issue of permanent custody is hereby reserved pending resolution of the criminal charges. Following resolution of the criminal proceeding, the Court may appoint a guardian ad litem herein and may conduct in camera interviews of the minor children."
The parents sought to register the above New Mexico order in Family Court. At a December 15, 2008 appearance, Family Court indicated that it had some concerns relative to relinquishing jurisdiction to the New Mexico court. Specifically, the Family Court judge indicated that "[w]hat concerns me is, apparently, there is no neglect proceeding in the State of New Mexico. There are criminal proceedings against these parents, but for whatever reason, there was no neglect proceeding ... [W]ith criminal charges pending, and the children being the ones who would be put in the position of testifying, should there be a criminal trial, ... the children are left with no legal remedies. There hasn't even been a law guardian appointed ... for these children in the State of New Mexico. And the parents are given full authority to do whatever, and place these children wherever they so choose."
By order entered January 9, 2009, the New Mexico court approved the home study and ordered the immediate transfer of the children to the Ohio guardians. The New Mexico court reiterated that the parents "are the sole legal guardians of the minor children and maintain their constitutional right to management and control of their minor children," and approved "[t]he parents' selection of placement guardian for their minor children."In light of that order, the parents requested that Family Court issue an order (1) registering and enforcing the New Mexico order assuming jurisdiction; (2) dismissing the New York custody proceeding; (3) dismissing the New York neglect proceeding; (4) vacating the temporary order of custody; and (5) enforcing the New Mexico transfer order.
DSS thereafter sought an award of temporary custody of the children. In support thereof, DSS submitted an affidavit of a psychologist who had counseled each of the children. The psychologist averred that the children "have related very credible stories of child abuse and neglect," and that the parents demonstrated a "disturbing pattern of isolating these children from each other, from children their age, and from their mother's relatives."With respect to the proposed move to Ohio, the psychologist averred that "[a]ny change in placement for the [children] that is instigated by their father or adoptive mother carries the implicit message to these girls that they are still under the control of their father, and therefore still at risk for abuse and maltreatment ... Removing them from an emotionally secure family environment, the friends they have recently established, and a school environment which has been affirming for them, must be considered a further emotional deprivation for these girls, and a demonstration to the girls that they remain at risk of capricious, abusive and insensitive treatment by their father. Accordingly, by generating a constant state of anxiety and uncertainty for them, such a move would result in a perpetuation of the emotional abuse and deprivation that these children suffered under the care of their father and adoptive mother."
Family Court granted temporary custody of the children to DSS, concluding that the basis for asserting emergency jurisdiction continued to exist. Family Court explained that, "[w]hen there is a placement out of state in a situation where parents are facing criminal charges, and there is no underlying custody order, and no law guardian appointed for the children, ... then the children are left without protection, plain and simple." At the fact-finding hearing on the neglect petition, DSS introduced testimony from each of the children as well as from the maternal step-aunt, Robin S., and the children's psychologist, and Family Court received in evidence records from the New Mexico Police Department and financial records relative to the father. The parents failed to appear at the hearing and subsequently moved to dismiss the neglect proceeding for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
By the order in appeal No. 1, Family Court implicitly denied the parents' motion to dismiss the neglect proceeding by issuing an order of fact-finding and disposition, which determined that the parents neglected each of the four children, ordered that the children be placed in the custody of DSS, and adopted the permanency plan proposed by DSS. By the corrected order in appeal No. 2, Family Court, inter alia, denied the parents' motion to vacate the order of fact-finding and disposition. The Appellate Division initially agreed with the parents that, absent the exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction, Family Court would lack subject matter jurisdiction over the neglect proceeding. Pursuant to New York's version of the UCCJEA (Domestic Relations Law art 5-A), Domestic Relations Law 76(1) "is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state" (DRL 76[2] ). A "[ c]hild custody determination" is defined as "a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child. The term includes a permanent, temporary, initial, and modification order" (DRL 75-a [3] ).
Here, the neglect proceeding commenced by DSS fell within the UCCJEA's expansive definition of a child custody proceeding (DRL 75-a [4] ). There was no question that New Mexico, not New York, was the home state of the children at the time of commencement of the neglect proceeding. New Mexico remained the home state of the children when the neglect proceeding was commenced in New York, and Family Court lacked jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination. In addition, Domestic Relations Law 76-e states that, "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in section [76-c] of this title[, i .e., temporary emergency jurisdiction], a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this title if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child[ren] has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this article...." Here, at the time of commencement of the neglect proceeding in New York, the parents had already commenced a custody proceeding in New Mexico. Thus, inasmuch as a custody proceeding was pending in the children's home state when the neglect petition was filed, New York was precluded from exercising jurisdiction except in an emergency.
The Majority concluded that Family Court properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 76-c. In the absence of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to section 76(1), section 76-c provides that a New York court has "temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child[ren are] present in this state and the child[ren] ha [ve] been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child [ren], a sibling or parent of the child[ren]" ( DRL 76-c [1];). There was no question that the children were present in New York at all relevant times in which Family Court exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction. There must, in addition, be an emergency that is real and immediate, and of such a nature as to require [s]tate intervention to protect the child[ren] from imminent physical or emotional danger". The duration of an order rendered pursuant to temporary emergency jurisdiction depends upon whether there is an enforceable child custody determination or a child custody proceeding pending in a court with jurisdiction. Here, a child custody proceeding had been commenced in New Mexico when Family Court first asserted temporary emergency jurisdiction. Thus, Family Court's exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction was governed by DRL 76-c (3), which provides that "any order issued by a court of this state under this section must specify in the order a period that the court considers adequate to allow the person seeking an order to obtain an order from the state having jurisdiction under sections [76] through [76-b] of this title. The order issued in this state remains in effect until an order is obtained from the other state within the period specified or the period expires, provided, however, that where the child who is the subject of a child custody determination under this section is in imminent risk of harm, any order issued under this section shall remain in effect until a court of a state having jurisdiction under sections [76] through [76-b] of this title has taken steps to assure the protection of the child."
Family Court first exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction on November 7, 2008, when it issued a temporary order of custody in the proceeding commenced by the aunt and uncle. In the Majority’s view there was no question that an emergency existed at that point in time. On September 22, 2008, CYFD notified the parents' attorney that it had closed its file concerning the children and that the parents, as the "legal custodians of their children," were "free to make changes in th[eir] voluntary placement."Shortly thereafter, the parents sent the stepmother's father, who lived with them, to New York in an attempt to take the children to an undisclosed address in New Mexico. On November 5, 2008, the parents commenced a custody proceeding in New Mexico seeking, inter alia, to place the children in the care and custody of yet another temporary guardian. According to the aunt and uncle, the parents also made "a threat ... immediately before the [New Mexico] Grand Jury Proceedings where the children were told that they would be taken to an unknown location."The parents initially sought to appoint the father's office manager as temporary guardian for the children. They then nominated the Ohio guardians, allegedly "long time and close friends of the family," as the temporary guardians of the children. The children told their attorneys and Family Court that they had never met the Ohio guardians. We thus conclude that Family Court properly acted to protect the children from imminent danger, i.e., the likelihood of returning the children to the home at which the abuse and neglect occurred or to another guardian under the control of the parents. At that point in time, no New Mexico court had issued an order protecting the children, and CYFD-the New Mexico equivalent of DSS-had determined that it had "no legal authority with respect to the children."
The orders challenged on appeal, however, were issued after the parents had obtained two orders in New Mexico: (1) the December 10, 2008 order assuming jurisdiction, and (2) the January 9, 2009 order approving the home study and ordering the immediate transfer of the children. The propriety of Family Court's orders thus depended upon whether this case fell within the narrow exception set forth in Domestic Relations Law 76-c (3), which provides that, "where the child[ren] who [are] the subject of a child custody determination under this section [are] in imminent risk of harm, any order issued under this section shall remain in effect until a court [of the home state] has taken steps to assure the protection of the child[ren]." The Majority concluded that this case falls within that category.
With respect to the first of the two New Mexico orders issued before the orders challenged on appeal, the court noted that, despite the criminal charges, the substantial evidence of abuse and neglect, and the no-contact order, the New Mexico court allowed the parents to select new guardians for the children and ruled that it would not address the issue of permanent custody until after the criminal charges had been resolved. The order provided that the New Mexico court "may appoint a guardian ad litem herein and may conduct in camera interviews of the minor children" following resolution of the criminal proceeding. The order further provided that the parents "shall not in any manner communicate with the minor children or cause any third party or their agent to communicate in any manner with the minor children regarding this matter or the criminal matter " (emphasis added). The New Mexico court thus left open the possibility of communication or contact between the parents and the children on other subjects. Although the New Mexico court ordered the parents to "continue to abide by the no[-]contact order or any further order" issued in the criminal proceeding, the court noted that "[t]here is no other order limiting [their] parental rights to the minor children."With respect to the second of the two New Mexico orders, the New Mexico court, after reviewing a home study arranged and paid for by the parents, reiterated that the parents "maintain their constitutional right to management and control of their minor children," approved the parents' "selection of placement guardian[s] for their minor children," and ordered the immediate transfer of the children to the Ohio guardians. Thus, without any input from CYFD or any other agency charged with the protection of children, an attorney for the children, or the children themselves, the New Mexico court ordered that the children be transferred from family members to non-relatives who were strangers to them and who resided in a state with which they had no connection, all at the behest of the parents who had abused them.
The Majority found it particularly troubling that CYFD failed to commence an abuse or neglect proceeding against the parents and that the New Mexico court failed to appoint an attorney for the children to advocate on their behalf pursuant to New Mexico law. CYFD apparently failed to conduct the statutorily mandated investigation into the abuse and neglect allegations against the parents (see NM Stat Ann s 32A-4-4 [A] ), and the agency also failed either to recommend or to refuse to recommend the filing of an abuse or neglect petition against them ( sees 32A-4-4 [C] ). Instead, CYFD simply transferred the children to New York and closed its file, leaving the children's fate to the wishes of their alleged abusers. In addition, upon asserting jurisdiction over the case, the New Mexico court failed to appoint a guardian ad litem or attorney for the children to "represent and protect the best interests of the child[ren] in [the] court proceeding" (s 32A-1-4 [J]; see s 32A-4-10). The New Mexico court then proceeded to change the children's placement at the request of the parents without enabling the children to have a voice in the courtroom and without any consideration, let alone determination, of the children's best interests. The children's psychologist averred in an affidavit presented to Family Court that the parents displayed a "disturbing pattern of isolating these children from each other, from children their age, and from their mother's relatives," and he opined that moving the children to Ohio at the behest of the parents "would result in a perpetuation of the emotional abuse and deprivation that the[ ] children suffered under the care of their father and adoptive mother". The parents' actions in attempting to remove the children from their New
York placement constituted "a continuing pattern of abuse to isolate [the children] from family members," and she and the psychologist similarly concluded that the parents' actions communicated to the children that they remain under the
control of their abusers. In light of the above-described circumstances, including the absence of a neglect proceeding in New Mexico and the refusal of the New Mexico court to act to protect the children pending the resolution of the criminal charges against the parents, the Majority concluded that Family Court properly continued to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction of the children after the issuance of the two New Mexico orders. In their view, the children remained "in imminent risk of harm," namely, emotional abuse inflicted by the parents, and it appears from the record before us that New Mexico has not acted to "assure the protection of the child[ren]"
The parents further contended that, even if Family Court properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction in the neglect proceeding, such jurisdiction did not permit Family Court to enter an order of disposition. The Majority rejected that contention. It stated: “Domestic Relations Law § 76-c (3), however, which is previously quoted herein and governs the instant case in light of the custody proceedings in New Mexico, contains no such provision. Thus, orders issued pursuant to section 76-c (3) are required to expire at a date certain unless the “imminent risk of harm” exception applies, in which case the order applies “until [the home state] has taken steps to assure the protection of the child.” Even assuming, arguendo, that the parents are correct, they concluded that Family Court was not thereby precluded from issuing the order of disposition in appeal No. 1. Although an order of fact-finding and disposition is a final order for purposes of appellate review (see Ocasio v Ocasio, 49 AD2d 801; see generally Matter of Gabriella UU., 83 AD3d 1306; Matter of Mitchell WW., 74 AD3d 1409, 1411-1412), it is not a final or permanent “child custody determination” (§ 76-c [2], [3] [emphasis added]). Rather, the order in appeal No. 1 here simply placed the children in the custody of DSS, scheduled a permanency hearing, and approved a proposed plan for the children. A placement with DSS is never intended to be a final or permanent custodial relationship. In cases such as this in which a child is placed with DSS pursuant to Family Court Act § 1055, the court retains continuous jurisdiction over the case (see § 1088), and the child’s placement is reviewed at permanency hearings conducted every six months (see § 1089 [a] [2], [3]). Such jurisdiction continues until the child is “discharged from placement” (§ 1088), i.e., until permanency is achieved Family Court “maintains complete continuing jurisdiction whenever a child has been placed outside his [or her] home. Accordingly, the case remains on the Court’s calendar — there is no final disposition until permanency has been ordered — and the Court may hear the matter upon motion at any time. There is no need or requirement to wait until the next scheduled hearing date”. The parents therefore may at any time petition for the return of their children and/or move to vacate or terminate the children’s placement with DSS. Thus, the order of fact-finding and disposition in appeal No. 1, which concerns placement rather than custody of the children, does not conflict with New Mexico’s order, which provides that the “issue of permanent custody is hereby reserved pending resolution of the criminal charges” against the parents. Upon resolution of the criminal charges or when the emergency abates, i.e., when the New Mexico court ensures that the children are not “in imminent risk of harm” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-c [3]), the children’s placement with DSS may be revisited and the issue of permanent custody addressed. Until then, the order of fact-finding and disposition simply maintains the status quo – placement in the custody of DSS – with periodic judicial review to assess any changed circumstances. Inasmuch as the order of fact-finding and disposition does not constitute a final custody determination, it cannot be said that Family Court exceeded the scope of its temporary emergency jurisdiction in issuing the order in appeal No. 1. “
Justice Smith dissented in part, only agreeing with the majority that the appeal must be dismissed with respect to the two older children because they were no longer under the age of 18 and voted to reversed in accordance with an opinion in which Judge Lindley concurred. They would reverse the orders on appeal insofar as they applied to the children under the age of 18 and grant the parents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding with respect to them for lack of jurisdiction. The dissent could not agree with the majority that Family Court properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction over the subject children and could not agree that such an emergency existed here. The dissent pointed out that: ” The majority fails to note, however, that the latter order contained an order of protection prohibiting the parents from communicating with the children in any manner, including through third parties, regarding the custody case or the criminal proceedings. The New Mexico court also ordered the parents to attend a court- approved Parent Education Workshop, approved a home study of the Ohio family by a licensed social worker and, most importantly, ordered that the children shall not be removed from the care of that family, or from a 100-mile radius of the Ohio family’s residence without the prior approval of the New Mexico court. Consequently, there is no imminent risk that the parents will continue their alleged abuse of the children, and the majority’s conclusion that the New Mexico court acted “without any consideration, let alone determination, of the children’s best interests” is simply incorrect. The dissent also observed that: “Family Court has issued an order that was in conflict with an order of the children’s home state, and which had no provision for the eventual transfer of jurisdiction to the home state. Family Court thereby created a jurisdictional competition rather than eliminating such a competition, the latter of which is required by the UCCJEA.

Under the UCCJEA , which Controls Jurisdiction in Neglect Proceedings, Jurisdictional Facts must Be Demonstrated to the Court's Satisfaction 'In the First Instance' and Whatever May Occur after the Jurisdictional Question Is Determined Is Irrelevant to That Issue"

In Matter of Destiny EE, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 6820412 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) Respondent was the mother of two sons (born in 1997 and 2000) and a daughter (born in 2003). In 2001, petitioner commenced abuse and neglect proceedings against respondent and her husband arising out of the husband's sexual abuse of the older son; both sons were removed from their custody. Respondent subsequently consented to a finding of neglect based on, among other things, her admission that she should have known of the abuse. The husband absconded, and Family Court issued a warrant for his arrest, which was never executed. Following an inquest held in the husband's absence, Family Court determined that he had sexually abused the older son and had neglected both sons, and issued orders of protection as to both children; the order applicable to the older son extended until his 18th birthday. In July 2003, the sons were returned to respondent's custody. Petitioner continued to provide services and supervision until approximately June 2005, when the proceedings were closed. Respondent thereafter took the children to Wisconsin, where they lived for approximately 18 months before returning to New York. In June 2007, approximately one month after her return to New York, respondent filed a custody petition alleging that the younger son was visiting the husband in Mississippi, the husband was "doing drugs" and drinking, the husband's girlfriend had hit the younger son with a belt, and the husband had refused respondent's request to return him to her custody. On the day that this custody petition was filed, petitioner applied, pursuant to Family Ct Act 1022, for temporary removal of respondent's children on the ground that she had sent the younger son to visit the husband despite her knowledge of his sexual abuse of the older son. After a two-day hearing, the court found that it had jurisdiction, ordered the removal of the children, and placed them in petitioner's temporary custody. The court also vacated the 2001 warrant against the husband and issued a new warrant for his arrest. The younger son was thereafter returned to New York. Petitioner commenced neglect proceedings as to each of the children and, following respondent's admission that her actions constituted neglect, the court placed the children in petitioner's custody.
In 2009, petitioner commenced proceedings seeking termination of respondent's parental rights as to all three children. Respondent moved to dismiss the petitions and requested vacatur of the 2007 neglect determination and return of the children to her custody. Family Court denied the motion in its entirety, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
Respondent contended that dismissal and vacatur were required because Family Court lacked jurisdiction over the temporary removal and neglect proceedings under Domestic Relations Law article 5-A, known as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The Appellate Division observed that the UCCJEA controlled as to jurisdiction here, as in all matters falling within the statutory definition of child custody proceedings (DRL 75-a [4]). Here, no jurisdiction other than New York had ever issued custody determinations affecting the subject children, nor had any applications for such determinations been made elsewhere. Therefore it found that Family Court properly determined that it had jurisdiction over the 2007 proceedings.
The Appellate Division observed that the UCCJEA establishes specific grounds as the basis for initial child custody jurisdiction, including, among others, that "this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state" (DRL 76[1][a] ). The home state is defined as "the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding" (DRL 75-a [7] ). In certain circumstances, children do not have home states. Respondent's children did not have a home state when the temporary removal proceedings were commenced, as they did not live in Wisconsin immediately before the proceedings were commenced and had not yet lived in New York for the requisite six months (see DRL 75-a [7]). Although Wisconsin had been the children's home state within the previous six months, it did not have jurisdiction when the removal application was filed because no "parent or person acting as a parent" was residing there (DRL 76 [1][a]; see DRL 76[1][b]).
Respondent claimed that the family's stay in New York was intended to be a "temporary absence" (DRL 75-a [7]), that Wisconsin was still the children's home state, and that she was still a Wisconsin resident. However, the record did not support this claim. "Jurisdictional facts must be demonstrated to the court's satisfaction 'in the first instance' and whatever may occur after the jurisdictional question is determined is irrelevant to that issue" ( Gomez v. Gomez, 86 A.D.2d 594, 595 [1982],affd 56 N.Y.2d 746 [1982], quoting Vanneck v. Vanneck, 49 N.Y.2d at 608, 427 N.Y.S.2d 735, 404 N.E.2d 1278). The jurisdictional analysis here thus depended upon the facts presented to Family Court when petitioner filed the emergency removal application in June 2007.
At that time, the record included respondent's sworn statements in her custody petition providing New York addresses for herself and the younger son, alleging that the younger son had lived in New York since May 2007, seeking his return to New York, and giving no indication that either respondent's presence in New York or that of her children was temporary. Respondent and the older son also made several statements indicating that the family had relocated permanently to New York; among other things, respondent told petitioner's caseworkers that she sent the younger son to Mississippi in part to make it easier to get settled after the move, and the older son stated that the family had moved from Wisconsin because of conflict between respondent and the maternal grandmother. During the removal hearing, respondent made no claim that her stay in New York was temporary, nor did she produce any evidence of continued residence in Wisconsin such as a permanent address or an anticipated date of return. Accordingly, the record before Family Court fully supported a determination that neither respondent nor her children still resided in Wisconsin and that their presence in New York was not temporary . Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 76(1)(b), a New York court may exercise jurisdiction, as pertinent here, when no court in another state has jurisdiction, the child and a parent have a "significant connection" with New York, and "substantial evidence is available in [New York] concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships."Such a connection exists only when "the forum in which the litigation is to proceed has optimum access to relevant evidence. Maximum rather than minimum contacts with the [s]tate are required" ( Vanneck v. Vanneck, 49 N.Y.2d at 610).
The Appellate Division found that the removal and neglect proceedings in this matter did not depend primarily upon information or contacts available in Wisconsin, but on the degree of risk posed to respondent's children by her decision to permit the younger son to visit the husband. New York was the only jurisdiction with pertinent information about the husband's previous abuse of the older son, respondent's knowledge of that abuse, and the related risk to her children. The prior proceedings took place in the same Family Court where the 2007 proceedings were commenced, extended over a four-year period, and resulted in determinations that the husband had abused the older son-then approximately four years old-by repeated acts of sodomy over an extended period of time, as well as respondent's admission that she knew or should have known of the abuse, and that her failure to protect the older son constituted neglect of both sons. A New York warrant for the husband's arrest was still outstanding at the time of the temporary removal application. At the removal hearing, respondent and the older son were represented by the same attorneys who had represented them throughout the prior proceedings. Petitioner was familiar with respondent and her children, as the sons were in its care between 2001 and 2003, and it had continued to provide supervision and services to the family over the next two years. As to contacts with New York, all three of respondent's children were born here and, except for the 18-month stay in Wisconsin, resided here throughout their lives. The children's previous foster family was still in contact with them; at the emergency removal hearing, respondent's counsel advised the court that the previous foster mother had come to court and was available to act as a resource. Moreover, the record indicated that the fathers of the older son and the daughter reside in New York, although it is unclear whether they had any significant involvement in the children's lives. Accordingly, both the "significant connections" and "substantial evidence" requirements were satisfied. New York was the jurisdiction with optimum access to evidence relevant to the determinations at issue, and Family Court properly exercised jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law 76(1)(b).
The Appellate Division observed that as an alternative basis for jurisdiction, Domestic Relations Law 76 (1)(d) provides that a New York court may exercise jurisdiction where, as here, "no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of [DRL 76(1) ]". Accordingly, it did not have to address whether New York's "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" as to the sons resulting from the prior proceedings was severed by respondent's relocation to Wisconsin (DRL 76-b [1]; see 28 USC 1738A [d])
The Appellate Division rejected respondent's contention that vacatur of the 2007 neglect finding was required based upon a recent determination by the Court of Appeals holding that an untreated sex offender's residence in the same home as his minor children, without more, is insufficient to establish an imminent danger to his
children or neglect by the mother in allowing him to reside there ( Matter of Afton C. [James C.], 17 N.Y.3d 1, 11 [2011] ). In that case, no evidence of actual danger to the children other than the sex offender designation was presented, but the Court of Appeals acknowledged that previous crimes against a child in an offender's care might be sufficient to establish such danger. In this case, the neglect finding against respondent was supported by evidence that the husband had sexually abused a child in his care, and by considerable additional evidence.

Important New Decisions - December 27, 2011

2011-12-27T08:35:00.000-05:00

Where Family Court Has No Jurisdiction to Issue Order of Protection, Such Order Is Void Ab Initio for All Purposes, Including the Power to Hold a Party in Contempt

In Matter of Parrella v Freely, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 6091331 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) in January 2010 the appellant was dating the former boyfriend of Lisa Ann Parrella, with whom Parrella had a child. At that time, Parrella filed a petition against the appellant, alleging that the appellant violated a previous order of protection. On July 13, 2010, the Family Court entered an order which, granted the petition and directed the appellant to stay away from Parrella and to refrain from communicating with or about Parrella for a period of two years. The Appellate Division reversed finding that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding. It observed that Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and, thus, it cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute. It held that where the Family Court has no jurisdiction to issue an order of protection or temporary order of protection initially, such an order is void ab initio for all purposes, including the power to hold a party in contempt (citing Matter of Robert B.- H. [Robert H.], 82 AD3d 1221, 1222; see Matter of Fish v. Horn, 14 N.Y.2d 905, 906). Pursuant to Family Court Act 812(1), the Family Court's jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain proscribed criminal acts that occur among enumerated classes of people, including persons who share an "intimate relationship" with each other (Family Ct Act 812[1][e]. Here, there was no evidence in the record that the appellant and Parrella had a direct relationship. Instead, the evidence revealed that the parties had met personally only during the course of the court proceedings and that the appellant had never met Parrella's child. Therefore, there was no evidence that the parties' relationship was an "intimate relationship" within the meaning of Family Court Act 812(1)(e). Since the parties did not have an "intimate relationship" within the meaning of Family Court Act 812(1)(e), the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the original order of protection or to issue the order appealed from.

Courts Will Not Require Children to Subsidize Parent's Financial Decision to Forgo Present Employment for Potential Future Income.

In Matter of Berrada,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 6090172 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) the parties were married in 1996 and had three minor children. After they separated in 2006, the mother obtained custody of the children and petitioned for child support (Matter of Berrada v. Berrada, --- AD3d ---- [appeal No. 511629, decided herewith] ). Rejecting the father's claim that he was unable to find employment, a Support Magistrate determined that he had failed to conduct a thorough job search, imputed an annual earning capacity to him of $125,000, and directed him to pay $2,834 a month in child support. The father did not file objections to that order. He did, however, file modification petitions in 2009, again asserting that he was unable to find work. The Support Magistrate dismissed the petitions, finding that the father had not demonstrated a
substantial change in circumstances. Family Court denied the father's objections and the Appellate Division affirmed. It held that in order to succeed upon his modification petitions, the father was required to establish a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the child support order that warranted a modification of his obligation
to pay child support. At the time of the hearing, the father remained unemployed, devoting his attention to various sales enterprises that paid on commission without producing consistent income. While he made an effort to find full-time employment within his narrow area of expertise, his search did not extend elsewhere. Moreover, the
father was attempting to develop his own business and testified that he would only
"jump on" a full-time job offer if it paid a substantial salary. Notwithstanding the father's argument that the new venture constitutes a substantial change of circumstances in that it may produce income in the future, the courts will not require the children to subsidize a parent's financial decision" to forgo present employment for potential future income.

Family Court Did Not Abuse Discretion by Terminating the Father's Child Support Obligation Where Mother Deliberately and Unjustifiably Frustrated Father's Visitation.

In Matter of Luke v Luke,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 6090137 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.)
Petitioner (father) and respondent (mother) were the parents of one child (born in 2001). The parties separated prior to the child's birth. In 2003, the parties agreed to a stipulated order of joint custody, physical custody to the mother and visitation with the father on alternate weekends. These visits apparently only occurred for one or two months. Also in 2003, a support order was entered against the father. The father then moved to New Jersey. Each party claimed that he or she lacked contact information for the other after 2003. In 2004, Family Court issued a default order awarding the mother sole custody, with visitation to the father as agreed upon by the mother. In 2007, the father returned to Schuyler County. That same year, the mother apparently moved to New Jersey and then Pennsylvania. In 2009, the father sought Family Court's assistance to locate the mother and filed a petition seeking visitation with the parties' daughter. In October 2009, after these proceedings had commenced, the mother moved back to Schuyler County, but within a few months she moved to Steuben County. The father filed numerous petitions seeking visitation, custody and downward modification of support, and alleging that the mother violated the prior visitation order as well as temporary orders entered during these proceedings. Following a hearing Family Court awarded the parties joint custody with the child spending four days per week with the father and three days per week with the mother. The court also terminated the father's support obligation effective January 2010, the date he filed his support modification petition.
The Appellate Division held that Family Court's modification of custody has a sound and substantial basis in the record. The parties' numerous moves, the father trying to reestablish contact and the mother hindering those efforts all provided changed circumstances reflecting a need to modify the prior custody and visitation order. Although the father did not actively attempt to enforce his visitation rights and pursue his relationship with his daughter from 2003 to 2009, he testified that he had no vehicle in New Jersey, had no contact information for the mother or child and did not know how to find them. The mother stopped bringing the child to visitation after one or two months in 2003 and-despite having agreed to the visitation-filed unsubstantiated petitions to terminate the visitation soon after entering the stipulation. The mother moved numerous times, including four times during the pendency of these proceedings, and never informed the father. One was a safe house where she fled to escape domestic abuse by her paramour-abuse that was witnessed by the daughter and caused her to fear the paramour. The mother also violated almost every temporary visitation order entered during the pendency of these proceedings by failing to bring the child to visit with the father. When she did not have a suitable place to live, she wrote a letter assigning custody of her daughter and son to her paramour's adult daughter, without consulting the father. The paramour's daughter also deprived the father of his court-ordered visitation, and the mother passed blame to her. At the time of the Lincoln hearing, the child had not seen her mother for almost two months, and the mother testified that she called only when she had minutes on her phone. While the father had lost contact with his daughter for several years and did not adequately explain why he took so long to attempt to reestablish a connection, at the time of the hearing he had been working for a year to form a relationship with her. Those efforts were constantly thwarted by the mother and her paramour's daughter, who failed to bring the child to visits and even kept the child out of school on Fridays when the father was supposed to pick the child up for weekend visitation. Everyone agreed that the child should remain in the same school district; the father lived near the child's school, while the mother had moved to a different district. The father also agreed to open a preventative services file
with the local social services agency and bring the child to mental health counseling.
Family Court did not err in placing the child with the father for four days per week.
While the law expresses a preference for keeping siblings together, the rule is
not absolute and has become complicated by changing family dynamics and the
presence of multiple half siblings the court must ultimately decide what is
best for the child at issue. Here, the custody petitions regarding the mother's son-the half brother of the daughter involved in this appeal-were withdrawn or dismissed, leaving that child in the mother's custody. Evidence indicated that the son would have difficulty being separated from his half sister, but there was no evidence of ill effects to the daughter from any separation. In any event, Family Court's order left those children together for three days each week. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the custodial interference by the mother, the record contained a sound and substantial basis for the court's custody determination.
The Appellate Division held that Family Court did not abuse its discretion by terminating the father's child support obligation. The court was authorized to suspend support payments for periods when the mother wrongfully interfered with or withheld visitation. The record supported the finding that the mother deliberately and unjustifiably frustrated the father's visitation by failing to produce the child, moving without notifying the father and attempting to informally transfer custody to another
person who also did not produce the child for visitation-again without informing
the father. Additionally, the court's custody determination placed the child in the father's care for the majority of each week, providing a basis to eliminate his support obligation. Hence, the court did not err in terminating the father's support obligation as of January 2010, the date he filed a petition seeking such relief.

Family Offense Petition is Sufficient if it Alleges specific acts committed at identified places and times, which, if proven, would constitute a family offense enumerated in Family Court Act 812(1)

In Matter of Little v Renz, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 6224696 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division observed that a proceeding pursuant to article eight of the Family Court Act is originated by the filing of a petition containing an allegation that the respondent committed an enumerated family offense. As a general matter, the factual allegations in a pleading must be "sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense" (CPLR 3013; Family Ct Act 165). It found that the petition in this case was not "a vague and conclusory repetition of the statutory language inasmuch as it alleged specific acts committed at identified places and times, which, if proven, would constitute a family offense . Accordingly, the allegations contained in the petition were sufficient to allege a family offense enumerated in Family Court Act 812(1), and the Family Court erred in denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding on the ground that the petition was insufficient.

Violation Petition Insufficient Where it Lacked Sufficient Specificity to Provide Respondent with Proper Notice of Alleged Violation and Failed to Outline How Petitioners Rights Prejudiced

In Miller v Miller, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 6090163 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) the parties were the parents of two children, born in 2004 and 2005. A custody order entered in March 2008 granted sole legal custody to respondent (mother) with visitation to petitioner (father) as agreed between the parties. Among other provisions, it further required that the children be properly supervised at all times and that neither parent smoke or allow a third party to smoke in a vehicle in which the children are passengers. In June 2010, the father filed a violation petition alleging that the mother was in contempt of this order in that she failed to properly supervise and discipline the children, as she had permitted the older child to be violent towards others and to smoke. Finding that the petition lacked sufficient specificity to provide the mother with proper notice and failed to outline how the father's rights had been prejudiced, Family Court dismissed the petition without a hearing, but ordered a neglect investigation by the St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services. The Appellate Division affirmed. It held that the petition was subject to the requirements of CPLR 3013, and thus required to "be sufficiently particular" as to provide notice to the court and opposing party of the occurrences to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action (CPLR 3013; Family Ct. Act 165[a] ). The generalized allegations of the petition, even liberally construed, failed to provide the mother with notice of a particular event or violation such that she could prepare a defense (CPLR 3026). Further, the father failed to assert how the mother's alleged failings " 'defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced' " his rights, as required to sustain a civil contempt finding. Although Family Court properly ordered an investigation to determine whether a neglect or abuse proceeding should be initiated, this protective measure did not serve to remedy the defects in the father's petition. Accordingly, there was no error in the dismissal of the petition
without a hearing.

Appeal Dismissed for Failure of Appellant to Include Transcripts

In Matter of Katz v Dotan, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 6091334 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division observed that it is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal (see Family Ct Act 1118; CPLR 5525[a]). The failure to provide necessary transcripts inhibits the Court's ability to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal. In this case, the full record of the proceedings in the
Family Court had not been transcribed. The appeal was dismissed, as the papers provided were patently insufficient for the purpose of reviewing the issues the father has raised.

Appeal Dismissed for Failure to Full Trial Transcript in Record

In Clarke v Clarke, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 6225188 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the Supreme Court which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, failed to direct the defendant to pay child support arrears, failed to award her maintenance, and failed to equitably distribute the value of the defendant's medical license. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal. It observed that an appellant is obligated to assemble a proper record on appeal, which must include any relevant transcripts of proceedings before the Supreme Court (CPLR 5525[a]; 5526). The record must also "contain all of the relevant papers that were before the Supreme Court, including the transcript, if any, of the proceedings" ( Matison v. County of Nassau, 290 A.D.2d 494, 494). Here, the plaintiff appealed from a judgment which failed to direct the defendant to pay child support arrears, failed to award the plaintiff
maintenance, and failed to equitably distribute the value of the defendant's medical license. However, the plaintiff's failure to provide the Court with the full transcript of the nonjury trial conducted before the Supreme Court rendered the record on appeal inadequate to enable the Court to reach an informed determination on the merits. Thus, the appeal had to be dismissed.

Father's Failure to Properly File a Full Record on Appeal, Despite His Contrary Statement Made Pursuant to CPLR 5531, Warranted Imposition of Costs

In Haleniuk v. Persaud, 89 A.D.3d 601, 933 N.Y.S.2d 33 (1 Dept, 2011), in affirming the order of Family Court, the Appellate Division found that the evidence in the record sufficiently supported Family Court's finding that the father failed to meet his burden of showing that the child was constructively emancipated. Although the record reflected a strained relationship between the father and child, it did not support a finding that the child completely refused to have a relationship with the father. The Appellate Divison held that the father's failure to properly file a full record on appeal, despite his contrary statement made pursuant to CPLR 5531, warranted the imposition of costs incurred in preparing and filing a respondent's appendix (CPLR 5528[e]; 22 NYCRR 600.10[c][1] ).

Important New Decisions - December 7, 2011

2011-12-07T11:05:00.000-05:00

Child Denied the Meaningful Assistance of Appellate Counsel Where Attorney for Child Failed to Consult with and Advise Child in Manner Consistent with the Child's Capacities"

In Matter of Lamarcus E., --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5984243 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.)
Respondent was the father of the child (born in 2002). In August 2009, while under petitioner's supervision, the father told petitioner that he intended to relocate to Connecticut in October 2009 to work and live with his girlfriend, but that he would not be taking his son with him. Thereafter, petitioner filed a neglect petition against the father alleging that he planned to permanently relocate to Connecticut without his child and without any viable plan for the child's care in his absence, and that the father planned to place the child in foster care. Upon receipt of the petition, Family Court removed the child and placed him in the custody of petitioner. The father relocated to Connecticut the next day. Following a fact-finding hearing, the father was determined to have neglected his child and, after a dispositional hearing, Family Court directed that the child continue his placement with petitioner. The father appealed. No appeal was taken on behalf of the child. The Appellate Division observed that the attorney assigned to represent the child on this appeal was not the same attorney who continued to represent the child in Family Court. Although the child's appellate attorney had taken a position on this appeal that was consistent with that taken by the child's attorney in Family Court, she reported in her brief that she had not personally met with her client, who was now nine years old. She explained that the child's attorney in the ongoing proceedings in Family Court had been "able to provide me with continuing information on my client, his position and the status of the [proceedings in Family Court]." The child's appellate attorney provided the Appellate Division with no further explanation. Given the foregoing, the Appellate Division found that the child had been denied the meaningful assistance of appellate counsel. Counsel's failure to "consult with and advise the child to the extent of and in a manner consistent with the child's capacities" (22 NYCRR 7.2[d][1] ) constituted a failure to meet her essential responsibilities as the attorney for the child. Client contact, absent extraordinary circumstances, is a significant component to the meaningful representation of a child. Therefore, given the circumstances, and for the reasons clearly articulated in Matter of Mark T. v. Joyanna U. (64 A.D.3d 1092, 1093-1095 [2009] ) and Matter of Lewis v. Fuller, (69 A.D.3d 1142 [2010] ), the child's appellate counsel was relieved, the decision was withheld, and new counsel to be assigned to represent the child on the appeal.

Error to Dismiss Custody Case for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Given Provision UCCJEA Providing That Physical Presence Of, or Personal Jurisdiction Over, a Party or a Child Not Necessary or Sufficient to Make a Child Custody Determination.

In Matter of Malek v Kwiatkowski, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5984260 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) Petitioner (father) and respondent (mother) were the unmarried parents of two daughters (born in 2004 and 2008). The father commenced the proceeding for joint custody and visitation in June 2010, alleging that the mother had relocated with the children in April 2010. The mother appeared pro se by telephone at Family Court's first two hearings, but she withheld her out-of-state address from the father because she alleged that she and the children were fearful of him. At the third appearance, the mother's counsel appeared on her behalf and claimed that she was financially unable to travel to New York at that time. Although the mother's counsel raised the issue of the lack of personal jurisdiction over his client, Family Court stated that the mother had submitted to the court's jurisdiction, set a trial date and told counsel that the mother's failure to appear on that date would result in a default. At the scheduled trial date, however, Family Court directed the mother's counsel to again make a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, determined that the mother had not waived service by appearing and dismissed the petition with prejudice.
The Appellate Division reversed. It held that the Family Court erred in dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction given the provision of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act found at Domestic Relations Law 76(3), which provides that "[p]hysical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination." Further, under the circumstances, it was improper to dismiss the father's petition without first ordering service by an alternative method (see Domestic Relations Law 75-g [1][c] ). The mother had not revealed her address to the father, making normal service of process impractical. Additionally, the court had stated previously that the mother had submitted to its jurisdiction and ordered her to appear for a trial, thus giving the father no reason to believe that jurisdiction remained an issue. The court's peremptory resurrection of the issue when the mother did not appear on the trial date and its grant of the motion without affording the father an opportunity to serve the mother by alternative means was improper under these circumstances and it reversed and
remitted for that purpose.

Support Order Which Fails to Comply with Family Ct Act 413(1)(H) Is Invalid and Unenforceable.

In Matter of McKenna v McKenna, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5984262 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) upon the oral stipulation of petitioner (mother) and respondent (father), an order was entered that set the father's basic monthly child support obligation for the parties' two children at $1,235. In March 2010, the father filed an application to vacate the order, claiming that it did not comply with Family Ct Act 413(1)(h). Family Court affirmed the Support Magistrate's denial of the father's motion.
The Appellate Division reversed. It found that the order was invalid and unenforceable because it failed to include, as required, " 'a provision stating that the parties have been advised of the provisions of [the Child Support Standards Act] and that the basic child support obligation provided for therein would presumptively result in the correct amount of child support to be awarded' . While the parties acknowledged that they had agreed to the amount that the father would pay in basic child support-before any additional amount was added for child care and health insurance, no reference was made to the presumptive amount of child support under the Child Support Standards Act in their agreement or at the hearing, or in the order ultimately issued by Family Court. Because neither the agreement nor the order advised the parties in accordance with the nonwaiveable requirements of the Child Support Standards Act and the record contained no explanation as to whether or why there has
been a deviation from the child support calculation provided by that statute, the
support order at issue was invalid and unenforceable. The matter was remitted to Family Court to determine the amount of child support that the father was obligated to pay.

Mistrial Granted an New Attorney Assigned Based upon Failure of Attorney for the Child to Fulfill Attorney's Obligations under 22 Nycrr 7.2 (D) to Advocate Child’s Wishes

In Michael H v April H,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 6015796 (N.Y.Fam.Ct.) on October 4, 1999, the Court issued an Order awarding April "H ("the mother") and Michael "H." ( "the father") joint legal custody of the subject child, Seth "H." with the mother having
primary physical custody of the subject child subject to a schedule of visitation
for the father. On August 3, 2011, the father filed a modification petition seeking sole legal and physical custody. The father alleged among other things, that the child has resided with the father since June 22, 2011, when the mother essentially kicked the child out of her home. During the trial, held on November 2, 2011, the Court conducted a Lincoln hearing to take the subject child's testimony under oath. See, Matter of Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270, 247 N.E.2d 659 [1969]. During the Lincoln hearing, the child, a mature fourteen year old, expressed a clear position to the Court and a reasonable basis for his position. During closing arguments, the Attorney for the Child advocated for a disposition that directly contradicted the wishes of the child as expressed in the Lincoln hearing.
As a result of the Attorney for the Child's closing arguments, the Court became concerned that the Attorney for the Child was not fulfilling her obligations under 22 NYCRR 7.2(d). This section requires the Attorney to zealously advocate for the child's position. See, Krieger v. Krieger, 65 AD3d 1350, 886 N.Y.S.2d 463 [2d Dept 2009]; and Mark T. v. Joyanna U., 64 AD3d 1092, 882 N.Y.S.2d 773 [3d Dept 2009]. Except in two circumstances, the Attorney for the Child must be directed by the wishes of the child even when the attorney believes that what the child wants is not in the child's best interest. The first exception applies when the child is not capable of knowing, voluntary and considered judgment.. The second exception applies when the child's wishes are likely to result in substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the child.
After considering the events of the trial, the Court, sua sponte, moved for a mistrial and an order assigning a new Attorney for the Child to represent the child's interests going forward based upon the apparent failure of the Attorney for the Child to fulfill the attorney's obligations under 22 NYCRR 7.2 (d). In the Court's opinion the mother in effect stated that that the child was capable of knowing, voluntary and considered judgment as those terms are used by 22 NYCRR 7.2(d). Neither the father nor the Attorney for the Child argued that the child was not capable of knowing, voluntary and considered judgment. The Attorney for the Child's credit frankly acknowledged that she failed to zealously advocate for her client during the closing argument. She acknowledged that although it was an honest mistake, it was a mistake.
The Court declared a mistrial. It found that counsel's error was not harmless. Reasonable minds could differ regarding what order served the best interest of the child
and therefore, closing arguments were important in this case. If counsel elects to
make a closing argument, the closing argument may not advocate for an outcome
which directly opposed the child's position (except in the two circumstances described above). Second, if the Court were to ignore the Attorney for the Child's closing argument placed upon the record and make a decision in this case based upon the rest of the record, the legitimacy of the judicial process could be reasonably questioned. If the Court were to decide in the mother's favor, a reasonable mind may be suspicious that the Court was, in fact, not ignoring the Attorney for the Child's argument. If the Court were to decide in the father's favor, a reasonable mind may be suspicious that the Court was trying to manipulate the outcome in order to render this issue meaningless. Third, the Court could not be certain of the scope of the Attorney for the Child's error. If the error went beyond closing argument, the scope of the evidence admitted may have been effected. Given the Court's decision to declare a mistrial, it was consistent with the administration of justice and the best interest of the child to relieve the Attorney for the Child of any further responsibilities in the matter and to assign a new attorney to represent the child's interests going forward. The Court considered whether or not this issue should be raised sua sponte and acknowledged that neither parent nor the Attorney for the Child raised the issue or asked for any relief as a result of the issue. However, the trial judge was the only person present during the Lincoln hearing other than the child and the Attorney for the Child and thus, the parents and their counsel did not have an opportunity to evaluate the testimony of the child. Furthermore, the Court has an obligation to ensure that an individual's right to zealous advocacy is protected.

Important New Decisions - November 30, 2011

2011-11-30T06:56:00.001-05:00

Billing Statements of Former Attorney Inadmissible in Counsel Fee Hearing

In Matter of Denton v Barr, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5922992 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.) the Appellate Divison modified an order of the Family Court which awarded petitioner attorney's fees of $110,000 and child support arrears of $11,000 to award petitioner $11,742 in child support arrears and $5,322 in interest on the arrears, and to remand the matter for clarification of the amount of attorney's fees awarded to and reversed an order which directed that the $110,000 in attorney's fees be paid to petitioner and mailed to the offices of her counsel. On a prior appeal, the Court found that pursuant to the parties' stipulation of settlement, petitioner was "entitled to attorney's fees and remanded for a hearing to determine the amount of those fees" (69 AD3d 24, 32 [2009] ). It found that the court, in determining the amount of fees due to petitioner, relied on documents that constituted inadmissible hearsay, namely, billing statements of respondent's former attorney (cf. Seinfeld v. Robinson, 300 A.D.2d 208, 209 [2002] ). The matter was remanded to the trial court for clarification of the basis for the amount of fees awarded.

Family Courts Jurisdiction is Limited to Family Offenses Committed Against Persons Listed in Family Court Act 812 Only

In Matter of Janet GG v Robert GG,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5083241 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) in March 2010, petitioner (mother) filed a Family Ct Act article 8 petition alleging that respondent (father) committed a series of family offenses against her and their two children (born in 1996 and 1998). Specifically, she alleged that on March 2, 2010, the father telephoned the children's school, spoke to a guidance counselor and demanded to see his children. Because the counselor believed that an order of protection was in place that barred the father from having such contact with his children, the counselor informed the father that he should not come to the school and, in any event, would not be allowed by school authorities to visit with his children. The father, despite this admonition, went to the school and, upon entering the premises, confronted the school superintendent demanding to see his children. After he became loud and boisterous and refused to leave the premises, the police were notified and the father was placed under arrest. The mother subsequently filed a petition claiming that this conduct qualified as a family offense and, on that basis, sought an order of protection for herself and the children. The father argued that what had occurred, even if true, did not constitute a family offense and, therefore, Family Court did not have jurisdiction. The court agreed and dismissed the petition with prejudice. The Appellate Division affirmed. It observed that Family Court's jurisdiction over family offense proceedings is limited to those acts between family members that 'would constitute disorderly conduct, harassment in the first degree, harassment in the second degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree, ...stalking, menacing in the second degree, menacing in the third degree, reckless endangerment, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree or an attempted assault (Family Ct Act 812[1] ). Family Court determined that while the father's actions may have constituted disorderly conduct, they did not amount to a family offense because, when committed, the father was not in contact with the mother or either of their children. Instead, the father's actions were directed at school personnel and not any member of his family. The Appellate Division agreed. The father's actions were directed not at the mother or the children, but at school personnel, and what occurred did not constitute a family offense. As such, Family Court was without jurisdiction to entertain this petition (Family Ct Act 812).

Second Department Construes Parties' Stipulation Providing for the Distribution of "Any Pension," to Refer Only to the Portion of Pension Representing Deferred Compensation.

In Nugent-Schubert v Schubert, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5085506 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the plaintiff former wife and the defendant former husband were divorced by judgment incorporating a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement provided for a 50% distribution to the plaintiff of the value of "any pension" received by the defendant. The plaintiff thereafter submitted to the Supreme Court a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ( QDRO), which included a provision entitling her to receive a share of any future disability pension, but limited to any portion thereof representing the defendant's earnings and years of credited service. However, the Supreme Court struck that provision of the QDRO. Subsequently, the defendant, who was employed by the New York City Police Department, retired on an accidental disability pension as a result of a line-of-duty injury. Pursuant to the QDRO in its current form, the plaintiff was receiving a portion of the defendant's accidental disability pension that represented compensation for personal injuries. The defendant moved to amend the QDRO so as to exclude this portion of his accidental disability pension from distribution to the plaintiff. The Appellate Division held that the motion should have been granted. It observed that where a QDRO is inconsistent with the provisions of a stipulation or judgment of divorce, courts possess the authority to amend the QDRO to accurately reflect the provisions of the stipulation pertaining to the pension benefits. A proper QDRO obtained pursuant to a stipulation of settlement can convey only those rights to which the parties stipulated as a basis for the judgment. Under controlling law, pension benefits, "except to the extent that they are earned or acquired before marriage or after commencement of a matrimonial action, constitute marital property" because they are "in essence, a form of deferred compensation derived from employment" during the marriage. However, any compensation a spouse receives for personal injuries is not considered marital property and is not subject to equitable distribution. Thus, to the extent [a] disability pension represents deferred compensation, it is subject to equitable distribution while to the extent that a disability pension constitutes compensation for personal injuries, that compensation is "separate property" which is not subject to equitable distribution. In Berardi v. Berardi, 54 A.D.3d at 984-985, 865 N.Y.S.2d 245 this Court concluded that, absent a provision in the stipulation specifically awarding the [wife] accident disability benefits, the Supreme Court had erred in amending the QDRO to award the wife a portion of the husband's pension representing compensation for personal injuries, as such a provision in the QDRO expanded the rights granted to the wife under the stipulation. Similarly, here, the parties' stipulation providing for the distribution of "any pension," which was entered into before the defendant became entitled to or applied for an accidental disability pension, must likewise be construed to refer only to the portion of the defendant's pension representing deferred compensation. The Appellate Division distinguished this case from its decisions in Rosenberger v. Rosenberger (63 A.D.3d 898, 882 N.Y.S.2d 426) and Pulaski v. Pulaski (22 A.D.3d 820, 820-821, 804 N.Y.S.2d 404). In those cases, the husbands had applied for disability benefits, based upon line-of-duty injuries, prior to execution of the stipulation such that they were "chargeable with knowledge of the prospect of [an] eventual disability retirement when [they] entered into the stipulation". Thus, in Pulaski and Rosenberger, where the husbands were aware, before entering into a stipulation, of the specific potential for receipt of pension benefits that they would be entitled to treat as separate property, the broad language in the stipulation referring to distribution of a pension generally, with no provision for separate-property treatment of the pension, was reasonably interpreted as intending to distribute the entire disability pension. Here, as in Berardi, where it was unknown and unanticipated that the defendant would qualify for a disability pension, there was no reason to conclude that a general provision providing for equal distribution of "any pension" was intended to opt out of the controlling law in order to distribute portions of any such pension that would not ordinarily be subject to equitable distribution. The fact that the plaintiff submitted a QDRO which would have limited the distribution of any future disability pension to that portion representing deferred compensation further evinced the parties' understanding that separate-property portions of "any pension" received by the husband would not be subject to distribution.

Third Department Affirms Initial Custody Award Made without Evidentary Hearing

In Matter of Cole v Cole, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4975299, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07328 (NYAD 3 Dept) Petitioner (father) and respondent (mother) were the parents of two sons (born in 2007 and 2008). In June 2010, the father filed a petition for custody of the children. He thereafter left the marital residence at the home of the maternal grandmother, and relocated to the paternal grandmother's home. In July 2010, the mother filed a petition seeking custody of the children. At the initial appearance, Family Court assigned an attorney for the children and temporarily ordered joint legal custody of the children with physical custody to the mother and, when the mother was working, childcare provided by the father at the maternal grandmother's home. At the next appearance, the father requested shared physical custody of the children and Family Court granted this as to weekends, when the mother was working. At the third and final appearance, in November 2010, Family Court issued a final order essentially based upon this same arrangement. The Appellate Division affirmed. It rejected the mother’s argument that Family Court erred by issuing a final order without conducting a hearing or engaging in other formalities such as placing stipulations or consent of the parties upon the record. An evidentiary hearing is generally necessary to determine custody matters, but it is not obligatory where, as here, no request is made and the court has sufficient information to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the [children's] best interests. Although no sworn testimony was taken, all three appearances before Family Court were attended by each of the parents, their respective attorneys, and both grandmothers, and the court invited and received input from all involved. The attorney for the children attended the two later appearances, and advocated a position based on interviews with the mother, her employer, the father and various service providers for the children. Further, the Chemung County Department of Social Services provided Family Court with a report assessing the needs of the children and the current family circumstances. The two parents, with the support of the two grandmothers, were essentially collaborating relative to the matters of sharing time and the responsibilities of caring for their children during the course of the proceedings, and Family Court found this structure in the best interests of the children. Although the mother was represented by counsel at all three appearances, at no time did she or her counsel request a hearing or other formalities. Upon review, it found that Family Court had sufficient information before it to support the determination.

Third Department Holds that In Neglect Proceeding Attorney for Children May Advocate a Different Position When the Children's Wishes Would Likely "Result in a Substantial Risk of Imminent, Serious Harm to the Children

In Matter of Alyson J, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5083950 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) a neglect proceeding, the Appellate Division disagreed with respondent's contention that the attorney for the children failed to adequately represent the children's interests. It pointed out that the duty of the attorney for the children is to advocate and express the children's wishes to the court, but on occasion it is acceptable for counsel to deviate from this obligation; the attorney is specifically allowed to advocate a different position when the children's wishes would likely "result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the child[ren]" (Citing (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d][3]; see Matter of Mark T. v. Joyanna U., 64 A.D.3d 1092, 1093-1094 [2009], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 715 [2010] ). Here, counsel had been involved with the children for several years and was well aware of their conditions, and the Appellate Division accepted the contrary position as in the best interests of the children. At the fact-finding hearing, the attorney for the children did indicate his clients' wishes, and properly informed Family Court that he was deviating from them.

Child Support Provisions of So-ordered Stipulation Which Did Not Contain Recitals Mandated by the CSSA Not Enforceable, But Remaining Provisions Held Enforceable.

In Bushlow v Bushlow--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5222909 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division held that contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the parties' so-ordered stipulation of settlement dated January 26, 2009, which was incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce, did not comply with the requirements of the Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law 240[1-b][h]). The stipulation did not recite that the parties were advised of the provisions of the CSSA, and that the basic child support obligation provided for therein would presumptively result in the correct amount of support to be awarded. "[A] party's awareness of the requirements of the CSSA is not the dispositive consideration under the statute" (Lepore v. Lepore, 276 A.D.2d 677, 678, 714 N.Y.S.2d 343). Moreover, the parties' prorated shares of child care expenses and future reasonable unreimbursed health care expenses deviated from the CSSA guidelines, since they were not calculated based upon the parties' "gross (total) income as should have been or should be reported in the most recent federal income tax return" (Domestic Relations Law 240[1-b][b][5][I]; 240 [1-b][c][1]). Thus, the stipulation was required to contain the additional recitals setting forth, inter alia, the amount that the basic child support obligation would have been under the CSSA (see Domestic Relations Law 240[1-b][h]). Since the so-ordered stipulation of settlement did not contain the specific recitals mandated by the CSSA, its provisions, insofar as they concerned the plaintiff's basic child support payment and "add-ons" for child care and unreimbursed health care expenses, were not enforceable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have incorporated them into the judgment of divorce. However, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the remaining provisions of the so-ordered stipulation, and the parties' open-court stipulation entered into on September 9, 2008, continued to be enforceable. The record did not support a finding that these provisions were closely intertwined with the basic child support provisions. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, for a determination of the basic child support obligation, including the parties' prorated contributions towards child care and reasonable unreimbursed health care expenses, in accordance with the CSSA.

Appellate Division Explains Doctrine of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel. Incidents in Counterclaim Occurring More than 5 Years Before Commencement May Be Properly Included If Relevant to Evaluation of Party's Claim for Cruelty Divorce.

In Maybaum v Maybaum, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5244417 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the defendant wife and the plaintiff husband were married on March 13, 1995. Two children were born of the marriage. In April 2010, the defendant commenced a proceeding pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, alleging that the plaintiff committed certain family offenses. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced the action for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. On April 27, 2010, the parties appeared before the Family Court and entered into a stipulation on the record. The parties stipulated that the defendant was withdrawing the pending family offense petition, with prejudice, in exchange for the plaintiff giving the defendant exclusive use of the marital residence. The parties agreed that the stipulation was binding in the action for a divorce pending in the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the defendant answered the complaint in this action and asserted a counterclaim for a divorce and ancillary relief on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. In reply, the plaintiff asserted affirmative defenses, including, as a third affirmative defense, that the defendant's counterclaim was insufficiently specific to meet the requirements of CPLR 3016(c), and, as a fourth affirmative defense, that the counterclaim was barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and equitable estoppel, based on the stipulation between the parties. The parties made several motions and cross motions for relief.
The Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to strike stated paragraphs of the defendant's counterclaim on the grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and equitable estoppel. The allegations in the defendant's counterclaim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, and the allegations in the plaintiff's family offense petition, did not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions. "It is not always clear whether particular claims are part of the same transaction for res judicata purposes. A 'pragmatic' test has been applied to make this determination-analyzing 'whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage' " (Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer, 6 N.Y.3d 94, 100-101). Applying this test, it concluded that the family offense petition and counterclaim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment did not form a convenient trial unit. Thus, the defendant was not precluded from litigating her counterclaim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment in the separate action in the Supreme Court.
The Appellate Division pointed out that collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same. The doctrine applies if the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action, and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action. Collateral estoppel effect will only be given to matters actually litigated and determined in a prior action. An issue is not actually litigated if, for example, there has been a default, a confession of liability, a failure to place a matter in issue by proper pleading or even because of a stipulation. Here, the issue of whether the plaintiff committed certain acts against the defendant was never determined in the Family Court proceeding, and the defendant's participation in the stipulation to withdraw her family offense petition, with prejudice, could not be construed to be the kind of determination following a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues that would be necessary to collaterally estop the defendant from establishing that the plaintiff committed the alleged acts. Further, the circumstances set forth by plaintiff simply did not rise to a level of unconscionability warranting application of equitable estoppel.
Since the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and equitable estoppel did not preclude the defendant from litigating certain of the allegations in her counterclaim that were alleged in her family offense petition, the Supreme Court should have granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the plaintiff's fourth affirmative defense alleging that the defendant's counterclaim was barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and equitable estoppel, as that defense has no merit.
The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to strike stated paragraphs of the defendant's counterclaim, in effect, as time-barred on the ground they alleged acts occurring more than five years prior to the commencement of the action. The allegations in the counterclaim relating to incidents occurring more than five years before the commencement of the action may be properly included to the extent that those allegations may be relevant to an evaluation of a party's claim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment in the context of the entire marriage.

Family Court Erred by Granting the Father's Motion for Summary Judgment Modifying Custody Order Without Allowing Mother Opportunity to Present Evidence. Due Process Requires That a Parent Be Afforded "A Full and Fair Opportunity to Be Heard

In Matter of Jeffrey JJ v Stephanie KK, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4975012 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) Petitioner ( father) and respondent (mother) were the parents of a daughter (born in 2003). Pursuant to a prior order of custody, the parties' apparently shared legal custody of the child; the mother had primary physical custody and the father had liberal visitation time. The father commenced a proceeding seeking primary physical custody of the child after the Rensselaer County Department of Social Services commenced a neglect proceeding against the mother and her husband (stepfather) after receiving a report that the stepfather had been intoxicated while driving with the mother, the subject child and another child in the vehicle. At the fact-finding hearing, the father presented evidence of an existing order of protection that prohibited the stepfather from having any contact with the subject child until July 30, 2010. The father then made an oral motion for Family Court to award him custody, which the court granted over the mother's objection, after it concluded that it was "impossible [for] ... the child's primary residence to be with the mother[,] who is living with [the stepfather,] against whom there is an order of protection." The court further concluded that the issue of the child's best interests had "almost been determined by virtue of the fact that there is an order of protection against" the stepfather. The court then awarded the father primary physical custody of the child with parenting time to the mother. The Appellate Division agreed with the mother that Family Court erred by granting the father's motion without allowing her an opportunity to present any evidence. In a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 6 seeking modification of a prior custody order, a full and comprehensive hearing is required. At such hearing, due process requires that a parent be afforded "a full and fair opportunity to be heard. Family Court violated the mother's due process rights when it granted the father's motion for summary judgment on the petition without permitting the mother an opportunity to present any evidence, call any witnesses, or even testify on her own behalf. While the court believed that the order of protection against the stepfather rendered it impossible for it to award the mother primary physical custody, on cross-examination the stepfather indicated that he was willing to move out of the mother's residence until that order expired. However, the mother was denied an opportunity to present evidence regarding the feasibility of this plan when the court granted the father's motion. In a footnote the court observed that the prior order was not included in the record on appeal, which omission ordinarily results in dismissal of the appeal (see Matter of Pratt v. Anthony, 30 A.D.3d 708, 815 N.Y.S.2d 832 [2006] ). However, since there was no dispute as to the terms of the prior order, which were put on the record in open court by Family Court, it decided to reach the merits of this appeal

Second Department Explains Requirements of Anders Brief and Responsibilities of Counsel in Relieving Assigned Counsel Who Filed Inadequate Brief

In Matter of Giovani S, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5222834 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the mother appealed from a fact-finding order in a child protective proceeding which found that she had neglected the child. The mother's counsel submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493), in which he moved for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant. The Appellate Division granted the motion, relieved assigned counsel for the appellant and appointed a new attorney as counsel to perfect the appeal from the fact-finding order. In its decision, written by Justice Skelos, the Court reviewed the basic principles espoused in Anders and their proper application, as well as the responsibilities of counsel in relation to the filing of briefs pursuant to Anders.
The Court observed that the fundamental principles upon which Anders was founded apply in both criminal and family law cases. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment converge to require that indigent criminal defendants, faced with the risk of loss of liberty or grievous forfeiture are granted equal rights to appeal through the representation and advocacy of assigned counsel. Likewise, a parent's concern for the liberty of the child, as well as for his care and control, involves too fundamental an interest and right to be relinquished to the State without the opportunity for a hearing, with assigned counsel if the parent lacks the means to retain a lawyer (Matter of Ella B., 30 N.Y.2d 352, 356-357. Accordingly, indigent parties to certain Family Court proceedings, such as child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, are entitled to be represented by assigned counsel (Family Ct Act 262[a][i]. Nonetheless, there is one limitation placed upon the right to counsel on appeal. It does not include the right to counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal. The United States Supreme Court in Anders set forth a procedure, subsequently adopted by the New York State Court of Appeals, which, when properly utilized in the context of potentially frivolous appeals, safeguards an indigent appellant's rights (see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744). According to that procedure, if, after a conscientious examination of the record, assigned counsel finds a case to be wholly frivolous, counsel should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. In fulfilling assigned counsel's role as an active advocate such requests to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief reciting the underlying facts and highlighting anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of counsel's brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses; the court--not counsel--then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. If the court "finds any of the legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal. If, however, the court is satisfied that counsel has diligently investigated the possible grounds of appeal, and agrees with counsel's evaluation of the case, then leave to withdraw may be allowed, and the appeal decided.
The Appellate Division pointed out that there are essentially two steps to the Court's review of an attorney's motion to be relieved pursuant to Anders. First, the Court must satisfy itself that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client's appeal. Significantly, although an indigent whose appeal is frivolous has no right to have an advocate make his case to the appellate court, such an indigent does, in all cases, have the right to have an attorney, zealous for the indigent's interests, evaluate his case and attempt to discern nonfrivolous arguments. "Every advocate has essentially the same professional responsibility whether he or she accepted a retainer from a paying client or an appointment from a court. In the fulfillment of that responsibility, counsel should promptly obtain any transcripts, and consult with the client, as well as with trial counsel (see People v. Stokes, 95 N.Y.2d at 637; People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d at 610-611). Further, assigned counsel "must master the trial record, thoroughly research the law, and exercise judgment in identifying the arguments that may be advanced on appeal. In searching for the strongest arguments available, the attorney must be zealous and resolve all doubts and ambiguous legal questions in favor of his or her client. Only after such a diligent and conscientious examination of the case will counsel be in a position to determine that there are no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal. Once that determination is made, as counsel must file a brief "reciting the underlying facts and highlighting anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The Court noted that the Court of Appeals' decisions in Stokes and Gonzalez provide guidance as to what will be considered a deficient brief. These cases demonstrate, counsel must, at a minimum, draw the Court's attention to the relevant evidence, with specific references to the record; identify and assess the efficacy of any significant objections, applications, or motions; and identify possible issues for appeal, with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority. Counsel cannot merely recite the underlying facts, and state a bare conclusion that, after reviewing the record and discussing the case with the client, it is the writer's opinion that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal . Where counsel has failed in his or her role as advocate by filing a deficient brief, on this basis alone, new counsel will be assigned to represent the appellant on the appeal. If the Court is satisfied, however, that counsel diligently examined the case on the indigent appellant's behalf, the next step in the Court's review is to determine, based upon an independent review of the record, whether counsel's assessment that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal is correct. In analyzing whether nonfrivolous appellate issues exist, it is essential to appreciate the distinction between a potential appellate argument that is merely meritless or unlikely to prevail and one that is frivolous. There must, however, be a finding of frivolity, not merely an evaluation of the likelihood that the defendant will prevail on the merits, because the exception to the constitutional requirement that certain indigent parties receive representation on appeal is predicated on the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require appointed counsel to press wholly frivolous arguments. Thus, once a court determines that the trial record supports arguable claims, there is no basis for the exception" and the indigent appellant is entitled to representation. Accordingly, it is inappropriate for the Court to analyze the merits of any particular appellate issue where the appellant has not received the benefit of a merits-based brief prepared by counsel. The question, therefore, to be answered by the Court in every Anders case is only whether "the appeal lacks any basis in law or fact". The question is not whether the appeal presents any issues that have merit, but whether it presents any issues that are "arguable" on the merits .
Turning to the present appeal, the Appellate Division found that counsel's Anders application failed on both levels of review. The Anders brief filed by assigned counsel for the mother contained a four-page statement of facts, in which he reviewed the testimony given by the sole witness (a police officer) presented by ACS, and ACS's documentary evidence. The brief reviewed only the witness's direct testimony, not the mother's counsel's cross-examination, and did not identify and evaluate the mother's counsel's objections. Significantly, although this case was resolved on motions, counsel's brief merely stated that motions were made, and indicates how they were decided, but does not include any summary of the arguments made by the parties. Finally, counsel failed to analyze any possible appellate issues or highlight anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The "argument" section of counsel's brief merely stated in conclusory fashion: "The undersigned has fully analyzed the record below, performed the necessary legal research, and it is my legal opinion that there are no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal." Accordingly, counsel failed in his role as advocate by filing a deficient brief, and, on this basis alone, the mother was entitled to new counsel. It noted that based upon an independent review of the record, the record presented nonfrivolous issues including, but not limited to, whether ACS met its burden of showing that, as alleged in the petition, the mother was involved in a drug sale in the child's presence; whether ACS's evidence was insufficient to establish neglect, at least as a matter of law and relatedly, whether the matter was improperly decided on a motion for summary judgment.

Important New Decisions - November 11, 2011

2011-11-16T14:08:00.000-05:00

Presumptive Amount of Temporary Maintenance Unjust or Inappropriate Where There Were Substantial Marital Assets Subject to Equitable Distribution, and Plaintiff Waited 3 ½ Years Prior to Seeking Temporary Maintenance

In Salai v Salai, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5526030 (N.Y.Sup.) Plaintiff wife moved for an order of temporary spousal maintenance of $9,571.22 per month. The parties were married on September 15, 1979. Plaintiff was a teacher in the husband was an attorney in private practice. Defendant was not opposed to the payment of some temporary maintenance but argued that plaintiff's requested amount exceeded her needs. The Supreme Court observed that Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(5-a)(c) provides the formula to calculate the presumptively correct award amount, which it applied to the parties' admitted income levels. It noted that DRL 236(B)(5-a)(d) provides that "the guideline amount of temporary maintenance shall be the lower" of two calculations, in this case $114,885 or $9,571 monthly. DRL 236(B)(5-a)(e)(1) provides that "[t]he court shall order the presumptive award of temporary maintenance in accordance with paragraphs c and d of this subdivision, unless the court finds that the presumptive award is unjust or inappropriate and adjusts the presumptive award of temporary maintenance accordingly based upon consideration of 17 factors. Having considered those factors the court found that an award of the presumptive amount calculated would be inappropriate and unjust because there were substantial marital assets subject to equitable distribution, and plaintiff had maintained a separate pre-divorce household for a period of three and one half years prior to seeking temporary maintenance. Review of the parties' Statements of New Worth indicated that approximately $2,440,000 of marital property was available for equitable distribution. Moreover, plaintiff maintained a pre-divorce separate household for three years and one-half years prior to seeking temporary maintenance. (DRL 236 (B)(5-a)(e)(1)(g)). Plaintiff had been virtually self supporting, aside from a $25,000 payment from defendant for a new car, for that period. This was not a case where the less-moneyed spouse can be said to have forgone her own career or educational ambitions in favor of the more moneyed spouse. Plaintiff has realized her full earning capacity and was not in need of any additional education. She had a Bachelor of Science degree, a permanent teaching certification,
and a full time permanent position paying $75,931 per year in the Penfield School
District. These factors together, together with the fact that a permanent
maintenance award, if any given the extent of equitable distribution contemplated
and plaintiff's ability to be virtually self supporting in her current job, argued
for a temporary maintenance award substantially less than the presumptive amount.
However, as plaintiff's earned income alone did not quite meet her reported current monthly expenses, it was appropriate to order an amount of maintenance to allow plaintiff to meet her expenses. Plaintiff took home $4,287 per month after taxes from her employment as a teacher. Plaintiff's claimed expenses were $5,886 per month. The
difference being $1,599 per month. In addition, while the parties appeared to live
well within their means, some consideration for the parties' standard of living
during the marriage had to be made. DRL 236(B)(5- a)(e)(1)(a). Accordingly, the court awarded maintenance in the amount of $3,000 per month, or $36,000 per year.

Fourth Department States That Federal Poverty Income Guidelines Do Not Apply Where Income Is Imputed in Excess of Guidelines Amount

In Niagra County Department of Social Services ex rel Hueber v Hueber, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5433691 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.) the Support Magistrate imputed income to Respondent based on the minimum wage for a period of over three years and ordered that he pay child support arrears for that period of $1,870.68. It was undisputed that the father was incarcerated for all but the last 4 ½ months of that time period. The Appellate Divison affirmed. It held that the Support Magistrate did not abuse her discretion by imputing income to the father for the period during which he was incarcerated for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation. To the extent that the father's financial hardship was the result of his own wrongful conduct, he was not entitled to a reduction of his obligation to pay child support ( Matter of Knights v. Knights, 71 N.Y.2d 865, 866-867). The father's contention that the child support arrears should be reduced to $500 because his income was below the federal poverty income guidelines was not preserved for review inasmuch as it is raised for the first time on appeal. In any event, the Appellate Division stated that his contention was without merit because the father's income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation includes imputed income (Family Ct Act 413[1][b][5][iv], [v] ), and thus his income was above the federal poverty income guidelines (see generally s 413[1][g]; Matter of Julianska v. Majewski, 78 AD3d 1182). The father's further contention that a local ordinance limiting the locations where registered sex offenders may be employed has prevented him from finding employment was not raised in his written objections to the Support Magistrate's order and thus was not preserved for review.

Order of Protection Properly Denied Where Communications Sent with Legitimate Purpose of Attempting to Reconcile with Petitioner

In Ovsanik v Ovsanik, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5433772 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.)
the Appellate Divison reversed an order of protection granted by the Family Court finding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed acts constituting a family offense. The
record established that the parties were married in 1987 and that, on at least two
occasions prior to the events leading up to the petition, the parties separated and then reconciled. In July 2009, petitioner left the marital home and began staying at a motel. Between October 2009 and September 2010, respondent visited petitioner at the motel on a daily basis, and it was undisputed that petitioner consented to those visits. In September 2010, petitioner informed respondent that she no longer wanted to be married to him and that he should no longer visit her. In an attempt to reconcile with petitioner, respondent left four handwritten letters and a store-bought card for her over a period of approximately one month. During that same period of time, respondent knocked on the door of petitioner's motel room at approximately 2 A.M. at least once or
twice. When respondent knocked on her door, petitioner ignored him, and respondent
left after a few minutes. Because petitioner worked overnight shifts, it was not unusual for her to be awake at 2 A.M., and respondent previously had visited petitioner during the early morning hours before September 2010. In light of the foregoing, the evidence was insufficient to establish that respondent acted with "no legitimate purpose" within the meaning of the stalking statute (Penal Law 120.45). "[T]he phrase 'no legitimate purpose' means the absence of a reason or justification to engage someone, other than to hound, frighten, intimidate or threaten" (People v. Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d 412, 428). Here, the letters and the card were sent with the legitimate purpose of attempting to reconcile with petitioner, a purpose that was not unreasonable based upon the parties' lengthy marriage and history of separation and reconciliation. The evidence was also insufficient to establish that respondent knew or reasonably should have known that his conduct caused "material harm to [petitioner's] mental or emotional health". Notably, there was nothing on the face of the letters or the card that was improper or threatening. Petitioner's testimony that respondent was physically violent during
the marriage did not tend to establish that respondent's conduct in 2010 constituted stalking. Indeed, the only incident of violence that was described in any particularity occurred in the early 1990s. Although there was no statute of limitations for family offenses, and acts not "relatively contemporaneous with the date of the petition" are entitled to consideration (Family Ct Act 812[1]), petitioner's remote allegations of physical violence did not establish "a cognizable pattern of behavior" on respondent's part so as to render his behavior devoid of any legitimate purpose.

Attorney Witness Properly Disqualified Based upon Advocate Witness Rule

In Jozefik v Jozefik, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5433996 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.) plaintiff contended on appeal that he was deprived of his right to counsel of his own choosing when Supreme Court disqualified his attorney based upon an alleged conflict of interest. The Appellate Divison rejected that contention. It observed that the decision to disqualify an attorney lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. It concluded that the court did not abuse its sound discretion in disqualifying plaintiff's attorney, based on rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). Rule 3.7(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall not act as advocate before a tribunal in a matter in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness on a significant issue of fact," with certain exceptions not relevant here. Although not binding upon the courts, the advocate-witness rule provides guidance for the courts in determining whether a party's attorney should be disqualified during litigation. The record established that it was likely that plaintiff's original trial attorney would be a witness on a significant issue of fact. During the first trial in this action, plaintiff testified that he requested and/or facilitated the transfer of an amount of wages ranging from $15,000 to $17,000 from his employer to his attorney's business account, and it appeared from the record that the transfer was in violation of an order appointing a receiver to receive plaintiff's income. Plaintiff's attorney transferred some of the funds to plaintiff and remitted the remaining funds to plaintiff's accountant, again in apparent violation of the above-referenced order. When the court questioned plaintiff's attorney on the record about that testimony, the attorney replied that he was "taking the Fifth." The court thereupon declared a mistrial and discharged plaintiff's attorney, reasoning that a conflict of interest had developed because the attorney was "likely to be called upon as a witness in this proceeding and may become a witness in another tribunal." Thus, the record established that plaintiff's attorney was likely to be a witness on a significant issue of fact in violation of rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, namely, the issue whether plaintiff violated the court's order appointing a receiver and, in so doing, diverted or otherwise obscured his income. As plaintiff conceded in correspondence to the court, his attorney "continually told [him], and apparently [his] wife's attorney did not disagree, that the only issues were the amount of child support and the amount and duration of maintenance." Thus, the extent of plaintiff's income was a significant issue of fact throughout the litigation. Notably, the record reflected that plaintiff's attorney was subpoenaed to turn over documents and to testify at trial against plaintiff. Although it appeared that plaintiff's attorney did not in fact testify at the second trial, the express language of rule 3.7 provides only that it is "likely" that the attorney will be called as a witness, and the Court concluded on this record that it was in fact likely. The Court rejected plaintiff's further contention that the court erred in failing to make a "searching inquiry ... to ascertain whether plaintiff understood the
dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. No such searching inquiry was required inasmuch as there is no right to counsel in a divorce action (see Matter of Smiley, 36 N.Y.2d 433), and the court was not obligated to elicit a waiver of such right by way of a searching inquiry before permitting plaintiff to proceed pro se.

Direction That Maintenance Be Nontaxable to Spouse Is "A Departure from the Norm Envisioned by Current Internal Revenue Code Provisions" and Requires Sufficient Evidence

In Siskind v Siskind, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5429488 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), an action for a divorce, Supreme Court, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff child support of $34,000 per year, and maintenance of $65,000 per year, nontaxable to the plaintiff, commencing on May 1, 2010, until the plaintiff reaches her 65th birthday, directed the defendant to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy of $4,000,000 to secure the child support and maintenance payments, directed that certain funds retained by the defendant's
attorneys in escrow be transferred to custodial accounts to pay for educational
expenses for the parties' two college-age children, and that the defendant be
responsible for payment of 90 percent of the college expenses of these two
children not covered by the funds in the custodial accounts, equitably distributed
the marital portions of the parties' investments by awarding the plaintiff $216,109.50, awarded the plaintiff an attorney's fee of $340,000, and denied that branch of his motion which was for a downward modification of his pendente lite child support and maintenance obligations. The Appellate Division modified. It held that in light of the parties' ages as well as their respective financial circumstances, the Supreme Court should have awarded the plaintiff $65,000 per year in maintenance until the earliest of her attainment of her 65th birthday, her remarriage, or her death. In found that there was insufficient evidence to justify Supreme Court's direction that maintenance be nontaxable to the plaintiff, which is "a departure from the norm envisioned by current Internal Revenue Code provisions" (Grumet v. Grumet, 37 A.D.3d 534, 536, 829 N.Y.S.2d 682). It also held that based on the evidence in the record, including the trial testimony, the defendant's financial records, and the tax returns of the parties and the defendant's businesses, the Supreme Court providently imputed income to the defendant and calculated the amount of child support by applying the statutory percentage of 17% to all of the defendant's income, which was $199,655, for child support purposes. While Supreme Court correctly required the defendant to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy in order to secure his maintenance and child support obligations, in view of those obligations, the amount of insurance that the defendant must maintain should be reduced from t$4,000,000 to $3,000,000. It held that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding an attorney's fee of $340,000 to the plaintiff in view of the relative financial circumstances of the parties, their ability to pay, the nature and extent of the services rendered, the complexity of the defendant's business endeavors, and the fact that the defendant litigated the issue of custody and visitation of the parties' daughter until it was settled by stipulation during the trial.

Child Not Constructively Emancipated Where Father Contributed to Deterioration of Relationship with His Son

In Matter of Glen LS v Deborah AS, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5431519 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division observed that under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, where a minor of employable age and in full possession of his or her faculties, voluntarily and without cause, abandons the parent's home, against the will of the parent and for the purpose of avoiding parental control he or she forfeits his or her right to demand support. In contrast, where it is the parent who causes a breakdown in communication with his or her child, or has made no serious effort to contact the child and exercise his or her visitation rights, the child will not be deemed to have abandoned the parent (Matter of Alice C. v. Bernard G.C., 193 A.D.2d 97). The burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it. Here, there was an insufficient basis in the record to support the Family Court's determination that the parties' son unjustifiably refused contact and visitation with his father. The testimony elicited at the hearing established the father's claim that his son chose not to speak with him on the telephone and did not return his text messages following an altercation between the two in February 2008. However, the evidence also revealed that the altercation between the two prompted the son to state that "he wanted to commit suicide" and resulted in therapeutic intervention. Based on these mental health concerns, the son, via his mother, requested that the father not contact him so that he could "sort out" the issues, indicating a temporary reluctance on the son's part to contact the father. The father acknowledged that he made no effort to enforce visitation with the assistance of the court. The father made no efforts to contact the son through the school other than one telephone call to a guidance counselor, and admittedly never attempted to visit the son at his mother's home after the incident. All attempts at communication by the father ceased in October 2009, eight months after the incident. The father made no attempts to contact his son during his senior year of high school and made no effort to discuss or gain information regarding the son's college plans. In June 2009, having rented out a portion of his house, the father removed the son's belongings from his home and dropped them off at the mother's home with an email communicating, in effect, that the door was open for the son to come to him "[i]f eventually he can work his issues out and feels he needs the other part of his family." However, shortly thereafter, the father
refused an invitation to his son's high school graduation and failed to acknowledge or congratulate his son upon graduation in any manner. While the father sent a birthday card to his son without response in 2008, the father also failed to respond to an Easter card sent to him by his son in 2010. The Appellate Division found that the totality of the father's efforts to establish a relationship with his son, over a period of several months, could not be deemed a serious effort that was in turn egregiously rejected by the son. A child's reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment, relieving the parent of any support obligation. Rather, the doctrine of constructive emancipation is applicable to situations where the child refuses to submit to the authority and control of the noncustodial paying parent or actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation. The facts here showed that the father contributed to the deterioration of his relationship with his son. The record demonstrated that the father's own behavior was the parallel and coequal cause of the deterioration in the relationship. Accordingly, the father failed to meet his burden of establishing that his son was constructively emancipated and Family Court should not have granted the father's petition to vacate the child support provisions of the parties' stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.

Interpreter Who Did Not Interpret Word for Word on One or Two Occasions, Engaged in Conversations with Witness, and Erred in Her Translation of One or Two Violated Standards for Court Interpreters

In Matter of Yovanny L, 931 N.Y.S.2d 485, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 21354 (Fam Ct), a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the Family Court found that that there were errors made by the court appointed Mandarin interpreter when interpreting the complainant's testimony. For example, the interpreter stated motorcycle before being corrected to say bicycle. In another instance the witness answered a question by saying he saw someone three to four times per week, while the interpreter interpreted two to three times. Additionally, at times it appeared that there was a conversation occurring between the interpreter and the complainant, and some statements may have been paraphrased rather than word-for-word.
The Family Court observed that Rule of Court 22 NYCRR 217 provides that "In all civil and criminal cases, when a court determines that a party or witness, or an interested parent or guardian in a Family Court proceeding, is unable to understand or communicate to the extent that he or she cannot meaningfully participate in the proceedings, the court shall appoint an interpreter." General standards expressed in the limited case law in this area set forth that since the interpreter is the conduit from the witness to the trier-of-fact, interpretation should be word-for-word rather than summarized, no conversation between the witness and the interpreter, no significant differences in the length of dialogue of the witness and the interpreter, and no bias or interest in the proceedings. (Citing, e.g., Matter of James L., 143 A.D.2d 533, 532 N.Y.S.2d 941; see also, Dat Pham v. Beaver, 445 F.Supp.2d 252; US v. Joshi, 896 F.2d 1303). In the OCA internal Court Interpreter Manual and Code of Ethics, the following "responsibilities" are indicated. Under "Accuracy", interpreters must faithfully and accurately interpret what is said without embellishment or omission, and there is additional advice for impartiality, confidentiality, proficiency, and professional demeanor. Under "proficiency" and "errors", interpreters must provide professional services only in areas where they can perform accurately, and when in doubt inform the court; and the interpreter must immediately inform the judge of an error, even if perceived after the proceeding has concluded. Because the interpreter did not interpret word for word on one or two occasions, engaged in conversations with the witness, and erred in her translation of one or two words, the Court found that she violated the standards for court interpreters. However, the bulk of her work, in the 30- 40 minutes of testimony, did meet proper standards, and the individual errors were isolated instances.
The Family Court noted that in People v. Singleton, 59 A.D.3d 1131, 873 N.Y.S.2d 838, the Court held that while there were some errors in interpretation, the defendant failed to establish that he "was prejudiced by those errors", and the conviction was affirmed. In People v. Dat Pham, 283 A.D.2d 952, 725 N.Y.S.2d 245, also, while there were some errors in the translation, the jury was informed of the errors, and the conviction was affirmed because the defendant did not show that he was seriously prejudiced. Other cases have held that the failure of the defendant to object as to the adequacy of the translation during trial or otherwise preserve proof of any serious error does not provide the basis for a reversal. Here the errors made were relatively minor and few, and did not affect the main aspects of the witness's testimony, and this Court, as the trier of fact in this Family Court juvenile delinquency case, was able to discern the testimony notwithstanding these errors. Therefore, as there had been no major prejudice to any party, and the drastic remedy requested by the Presentment Agency, that of striking the testimony and starting anew, was denied, as not warranted under the circumstances of this case. The Court directed that trial would resume with the continued testimony of the witness, with a different Mandarin interpreter to be supplied by the Clerk of the Court and the interpreter service unit.

Important New Decisions - November 11, 2011

2011-11-11T11:31:00.002-05:00

Child Support Provisions of So-ordered Stipulation Which Did Not Contain Recitals Mandated by the Cssa Not Enforceable, but Remaining Provisions Held Enforceable.

In Bushlow v Bushlow--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5222909 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division held that contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the parties' so-ordered stipulation of settlement dated January 26, 2009, which was incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce, did not comply with the requirements of the Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law 240[1-b][h]). The stipulation did not recite that the parties were advised of the provisions of the CSSA, and that the basic child support obligation provided for therein would presumptively result in the correct amount of support to be awarded. "[A] party's awareness of the requirements of the CSSA is not the dispositive consideration under the statute" (Lepore v. Lepore, 276 A.D.2d 677, 678, 714 N.Y.S.2d 343). Moreover, the parties' prorated shares of child care expenses and future reasonable unreimbursed health care expenses deviated from the CSSA guidelines, since they were not calculated based upon the parties' "gross (total) income as should have been or should be reported in the most recent federal income tax return" (Domestic Relations Law 240[1-b][b][5][I]; 240 [1-b][c][1]). Thus, the stipulation was required to contain the additional recitals setting forth, inter alia, the amount that the basic child support obligation would have been under the CSSA (see Domestic Relations Law 240[1-b][h]). Since the so-ordered stipulation of settlement did not contain the specific recitals mandated by the CSSA, its provisions, insofar as they concerned the plaintiff's basic child support payment and "add-ons" for child care and unreimbursed health care expenses, were not enforceable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have incorporated them into the judgment of divorce. However, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the remaining provisions of the so-ordered stipulation, and the parties' open-court stipulation entered into on September 9, 2008, continued to be enforceable. The record did not support a finding that these provisions were closely intertwined with the basic child support provisions. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, for a determination of the basic child support obligation, including the parties' prorated contributions towards child care and reasonable unreimbursed health care expenses, in accordance with the CSSA.

Party Who Accepts Benefits of Separation Agreement for Considerable Period of Time Deemed to Have Ratified it but Party Who Receives Virtually No Benefits from Agreement Cannot Be Said to Have Ratified It.

In Kessler v Kessler, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5241275 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) on June 10, 1980, after 25 years of marriage, the parties entered into a separation agreement, which provided that the plaintiff husband would make payments to the defendant wife for her support and maintenance and for the mortgage and carrying costs relating to the marital residence, where the defendant continued to reside. The plaintiff complied with the terms of the separation agreement and, in 2009, he commenced this action for a conversion divorce. In response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted an affidavit asserting that the plaintiff had procured the separation agreement through fraud and duress, and that the agreement was unconscionable. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff had concealed from her
his vast wealth, and had induced her to enter into the separation agreement at a time when, unbeknownst to her, New York's equitable distribution law was about to be enacted. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and subsequently entered a judgment of divorce directed the parties to comply with the terms of the separation agreement which was incorporated, but not merged into, the judgment of divorce. The Appellate Division affirmed. It held that a party who accepts the benefits provided under a separation agreement for any considerable period of time is deemed to have ratified the agreement and, thus, relinquishes the right to challenge that agreement. By contrast, when a party received virtually no benefits from the agreement, he or she cannot be said to have ratified it. Assuming the truth of the allegations set forth in the defendant's affidavit, the benefits she received pursuant to the separation agreement were far less than those she likely would have received had there been an equitable distribution of the assets accumulated during the marriage. The record, however, did not support a finding that the defendant received "virtually no benefits" from the agreement. Moreover, while a spouse will not necessarily be held to have ratified an agreement if it is found to be the product of duress and overreaching, the disadvantage to the defendant created by the alleged fraud and duress in this case could not be deemed to have persisted throughout the 29-year period during which the defendant accepted the benefits of the separation agreement without challenging it. Thus, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the defendant ratified the separation agreement. In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Appellate Division Explains Doctrine of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel. Incidents in Counterclaim Occurring More than 5 Years Before Commencement May Be Properly Included If Relevant to Evaluation of Party's Claim for Cruelty Divorce.

In Maybaum v Maybaum, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5244417 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the defendant wife and the plaintiff husband were married on March 13, 1995. Two children were born of the marriage. In April 2010, the defendant commenced a proceeding pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, alleging that the plaintiff committed certain family offenses. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced the action for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. On April 27, 2010, the parties appeared before the Family Court and entered into a stipulation on the record. The parties stipulated that the defendant was withdrawing the pending family offense petition, with prejudice, in exchange for the plaintiff giving the defendant exclusive use of the marital residence. The parties agreed that the stipulation was binding in the action for a divorce pending in the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the defendant answered the complaint in this action and asserted a counterclaim for a divorce and ancillary relief on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. In reply, the plaintiff asserted affirmative defenses, including, as a third affirmative defense, that the defendant's counterclaim was insufficiently specific to meet the requirements of CPLR 3016(c), and, as a fourth affirmative defense, that the counterclaim was barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and equitable estoppel, based on the stipulation between the parties. The parties made several motions and cross motions for relief.
The Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to strike stated paragraphs of the defendant's counterclaim on the grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and equitable estoppel. The allegations in the defendant's counterclaim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, and the allegations in the plaintiff's family offense petition, did not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions. "It is not always clear whether particular claims are part of the same transaction for res judicata purposes. A 'pragmatic' test has been applied to make this determination-analyzing 'whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage' " (Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer, 6 N.Y.3d 94, 100-101). Applying this test, it concluded that the family offense petition and counterclaim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment did not form a
convenient trial unit. Thus, the defendant was not precluded from litigating her counterclaim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment in the separate action in the Supreme Court.
The Appellate Division pointed out that collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same. The doctrine applies if the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action, and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action. Collateral estoppel effect will only be given to matters actually litigated and determined in a prior action. An issue is not actually litigated if, for example, there has been a default, a confession of liability, a failure to place a matter in issue by proper pleading or even because of a stipulation. Here, the issue of whether the plaintiff committed certain acts against the defendant was never determined in the Family Court proceeding, and the defendant's participation in the stipulation to withdraw her family offense petition, with prejudice, could not be construed to be the kind of determination following a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues that would be necessary to collaterally estop the defendant from establishing that the plaintiff committed the alleged acts. Further, the circumstances set forth by plaintiff simply did not rise to a level of unconscionability warranting application of equitable estoppel.
Since the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and equitable estoppel did not preclude the defendant from litigating certain of the allegations in her counterclaim that were alleged in her family offense petition, the Supreme Court should have granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the plaintiff's fourth affirmative defense alleging that the defendant's counterclaim was barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and equitable estoppel, as that defense had no merit.
The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to strike stated paragraphs of the defendant's counterclaim, in effect, as time-barred on the ground they alleged acts occurring more than five years prior to the commencement of the action. The allegations in the counterclaim relating to incidents occurring more than five years before the commencement of the action may be properly included to the extent that those allegations may be relevant to an evaluation of a party's claim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment in the context of the entire marriage.

Second Department Explains Requirements of Anders Brief and Responsibilities of Counsel in Relieving Assigned Counsel Who filed Inadequate Brief

In Matter of Giovani S, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5222834 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the mother appealed from a fact-finding order in a child protective proceeding which found that she had neglected the child. The mother's counsel submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493), in which he moved for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant. The Appellate Division granted the motion, relieved assigned counsel for the appellant and appointed a new attorney as counsel to perfect the appeal from the fact-finding order. In its decision, written by Justice Skelos, the Court reviewed the basic principles espoused in Anders and their proper application, as well as the responsibilities of counsel in relation to the filing of briefs pursuant to Anders.
The Court observed that the fundamental principles upon which Anders was founded apply in both criminal and family law cases. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment converge to require that indigent criminal defendants, faced with the risk of loss of liberty or grievous forfeiture are granted equal rights to appeal through the representation and advocacy of assigned counsel. Likewise, a parent's concern for the liberty of the child, as well as for his care and control, involves too fundamental an interest and right to be relinquished to the State without the opportunity for a hearing, with assigned counsel if the parent lacks the means to retain a lawyer (Matter of Ella B., 30 N.Y.2d 352, 356-357. Accordingly, indigent parties to certain Family Court proceedings, such as child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, are entitled to be represented by assigned counsel (Family Ct Act 262[a][i]. Nonetheless, there is one limitation placed upon the right to counsel on appeal. It does not include the right to counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal. The United States Supreme Court in Anders set forth a procedure, subsequently adopted by the New York State Court of Appeals, which, when properly utilized in the context of potentially frivolous appeals, safeguards an indigent appellant's rights (see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744). According to that procedure, if, after a conscientious examination of the record, assigned counsel finds a case to be wholly frivolous, counsel should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. In fulfilling assigned counsel's role as an active advocate such requests to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief reciting the underlying facts and highlighting anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of counsel's brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses; the court--not counsel--then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. If the court "finds any of the legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal. If, however, the court is satisfied that counsel has diligently investigated the possible grounds of appeal, and agrees with counsel's evaluation of the case, then leave to withdraw may be allowed, and the appeal decided.
The Appellate Division pointed out that there are essentially two steps to the Court's review of an attorney's motion to be relieved pursuant to Anders. First, the Court must satisfy itself that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client's appeal. Significantly, although an indigent whose appeal is frivolous has no right to have an advocate make his case to the appellate court, such an indigent does, in all cases, have the right to have an attorney, zealous for the indigent's interests, evaluate his case and attempt to discern nonfrivolous arguments. "Every advocate has essentially the same professional responsibility whether he or she accepted a retainer from a paying client or an appointment from a court. In the fulfillment of that responsibility, counsel should promptly obtain any transcripts, and consult with the client, as well as with trial counsel (see People v. Stokes, 95 N.Y.2d at 637; People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d at 610-611). Further, assigned counsel "must master the trial record, thoroughly research the law, and exercise judgment in identifying the arguments that may be advanced on appeal. In searching for the strongest arguments available, the attorney must be zealous and resolve all doubts and ambiguous legal questions in favor of his or her client. Only after such a diligent and conscientious examination of the case will counsel be in a position to determine that there are no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal. Once that determination is made, as counsel must file a brief "reciting the underlying facts and highlighting anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The Court noted that the Court of Appeals' decisions in Stokes and Gonzalez provide guidance as to what will be considered a deficient brief. These cases demonstrate, counsel must, at a minimum, draw the Court's attention to the relevant evidence, with specific references to the record; identify and assess the efficacy of any significant objections, applications, or motions; and identify possible issues for appeal, with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority. Counsel cannot merely recite the underlying facts, and state a bare conclusion that, after reviewing the record and discussing the case with the client, it is the writer's opinion that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal . Where counsel has failed in his or her role as advocate by filing a deficient brief, on this basis alone, new counsel will be assigned to represent the appellant on the appeal. If the Court is satisfied, however, that counsel diligently examined the case on the indigent appellant's behalf, the next step in the Court's review is to determine, based upon an independent review of the record, whether counsel's assessment that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal is correct. In analyzing whether nonfrivolous appellate issues exist, it is essential to appreciate the distinction between a potential appellate argument that is merely meritless or unlikely to prevail and one that is frivolous. There must, however, be a finding of frivolity, not merely an evaluation of the likelihood that the defendant will prevail on the merits, because the exception to the constitutional requirement that certain indigent parties receive representation on appeal is predicated on the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require appointed counsel to press wholly frivolous arguments. Thus, once a court determines that the trial record supports arguable claims, there is no basis for the exception" and the indigent appellant is entitled to representation. Accordingly, it is inappropriate for the Court to analyze the merits of any particular appellate issue where the appellant has not received the benefit of a merits-based brief prepared by counsel. The question, therefore, to be answered by the Court in every Anders case is only whether "the appeal lacks any basis in law or fact". The question is not whether the appeal presents any issues that have merit, but whether it presents any issues that are "arguable" on the merits .
Turning to the present appeal, the Appellate Division found that counsel's Anders application failed on both levels of review. The Anders brief filed by assigned counsel for the mother contained a four-page statement of facts, in which he reviewed the testimony given by the sole witness (a police officer) presented by ACS, and ACS's documentary evidence. The brief reviewed only the witness's direct testimony, not the mother's counsel's cross-examination, and did not identify and evaluate the mother's counsel's objections. Significantly, although this case was resolved on motions, counsel's brief merely stated that motions were made, and indicates how they were decided, but does not include any summary of the arguments made by the parties. Finally, counsel failed to analyze any possible appellate issues or highlight anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The "argument" section of counsel's brief merely stated in conclusory fashion: "The undersigned has fully analyzed the record below, performed the necessary legal research, and it is my legal opinion that there are no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal." Accordingly, counsel failed in his role as advocate by filing a deficient brief, and, on this basis alone, the mother was entitled to new counsel. It noted that based upon an independent review of the record, the record presented nonfrivolous issues including, but not limited to, whether ACS met its burden of showing that, as alleged in the petition, the mother was involved in a drug sale in the child's presence; whether ACS's evidence was insufficient to establish neglect, at least as a matter of law and relatedly, whether the matter was improperly decided on a motion for summary judgment.

Important New Decisions - November 4, 2011

2011-11-04T09:56:00.000-04:00

Family Courts Jurisdiction is Limited to Family Offenses Committed Against Persons Listed in Family Court Act 812 Only

In Matter of Janet GG v Robert GG,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5083241 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) in March 2010, petitioner (mother) filed a Family Ct Act article 8 petition alleging that respondent (father) committed a series of family offenses against her and their two children (born in 1996 and 1998). Specifically, she alleged that on March 2, 2010, the father telephoned the children's school, spoke to a guidance counselor and demanded to see his children. Because the counselor believed that an order of protection was in place that barred the father from having such contact with his children, the counselor informed the father that he should not come to the school and, in any event, would not be allowed by school authorities to visit with his children. The father, despite this admonition, went to the school and, upon entering the premises, confronted the school superintendent demanding to see his children. After he became loud and boisterous and refused to leave the premises, the police were notified and the father was placed under arrest. The mother subsequently filed a petition claiming that this conduct qualified as a family offense and, on that basis, sought an order of protection for herself and the children. The father argued that what had occurred, even if true, did not constitute a family offense and, therefore, Family Court did not have jurisdiction. The court agreed and dismissed the petition with prejudice. The Appellate Division affirmed. It observed that Family Court's jurisdiction over family offense proceedings is limited to those acts between family members that 'would constitute disorderly conduct, harassment in the first degree, harassment in the second degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree, ...stalking, menacing in the second degree, menacing in the third degree, reckless endangerment, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree or an attempted assault (Family Ct Act 812[1] ). Family Court determined that while the father's actions may have constituted disorderly conduct, they did not amount to a family offense because, when committed, the father was not in contact with the mother or either of their children. Instead, the father's actions were directed at school personnel and not any member of his family. The Appellate Division agreed. The father's actions were directed not at the mother or the children, but at school personnel, and what occurred did not constitute a family offense. As such, Family Court was without jurisdiction to entertain this petition (Family Ct Act 812).

Second Department Construes Parties' Stipulation Providing for the Distribution of "Any Pension," to Refer Only to the Portion of Pension Representing Deferred Compensation.

In Nugent-Schubert v Schubert, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5085506 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the plaintiff former wife and the defendant former husband were divorced by judgment incorporating a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement provided for a 50% distribution to the plaintiff of the value of "any pension" received by the defendant. The plaintiff thereafter submitted to the Supreme Court a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ( QDRO), which included a provision entitling her to receive a share of any future disability pension, but limited to any portion thereof representing the defendant's earnings and years of credited service. However, the Supreme Court struck that provision of the QDRO. Subsequently, the defendant, who was employed by the New York City Police Department, retired on an accidental disability pension as a result of a line-of-duty injury. Pursuant to the QDRO in its current form, the plaintiff was receiving a portion of the defendant's accidental disability pension that represented compensation for personal injuries. The defendant moved to amend the QDRO so as to exclude this portion of his accidental disability pension from distribution to the plaintiff. The Appellate Division held that the motion should have been granted. It observed that where a QDRO is inconsistent with the provisions of a stipulation or judgment of divorce, courts possess the authority to amend the QDRO to accurately reflect the provisions of the stipulation pertaining to the pension benefits. A proper QDRO obtained pursuant to a stipulation of settlement can convey only those rights to which the parties stipulated as a basis for the judgment. Under controlling law, pension benefits, "except to the extent that they are earned or acquired before marriage or after commencement of a matrimonial action, constitute marital property" because they are "in essence, a form of deferred compensation derived from employment" during the marriage. However, any compensation a spouse receives for personal injuries is not considered marital property and is not subject to equitable distribution. Thus, to the extent [a] disability pension represents deferred compensation, it is subject to equitable distribution while to the extent that a disability pension constitutes compensation for personal injuries, that compensation is "separate property" which is not subject to equitable distribution. In Berardi v. Berardi, 54 A.D.3d at 984-985, 865 N.Y.S.2d 245 this Court concluded that, absent a provision in the stipulation specifically awarding the [wife] accident disability benefits, the Supreme Court had erred in amending the QDRO to award the wife a portion of the husband's pension representing compensation for personal injuries, as such a provision in the QDRO expanded the rights granted to the wife under the stipulation. Similarly, here, the parties' stipulation providing for the distribution of "any pension," which was entered into before the defendant became entitled to or applied for an accidental disability pension, must likewise be construed to refer only to the portion of the defendant's pension representing deferred compensation. The Appellate Division distinguished this case from its decisions in Rosenberger v. Rosenberger (63 A.D.3d 898, 882 N.Y.S.2d 426) and Pulaski v. Pulaski (22 A.D.3d 820, 820-821, 804 N.Y.S.2d 404). In those cases, the husbands had applied for disability benefits, based upon line-of-duty injuries, prior to execution of the stipulation such that they were "chargeable with knowledge of the prospect of [an] eventual disability retirement when [they] entered into the stipulation". Thus, in Pulaski and Rosenberger, where the husbands were aware, before entering into a stipulation, of the specific potential for receipt of pension benefits that they would be entitled to treat as separate property, the broad language in the stipulation referring to distribution of a pension generally, with no provision for separate-property treatment of the pension, was reasonably interpreted as intending to distribute the entire disability pension. Here, as in Berardi, where it was unknown and unanticipated that the defendant would qualify for a disability pension, there was no reason to conclude that a general provision providing for equal distribution of "any pension" was intended to opt out of the controlling law in order to distribute portions of any such pension that would not ordinarily be subject to equitable distribution. The fact that the plaintiff submitted a QDRO which would have limited the distribution of any future disability pension to that portion representing deferred compensation further evinced the parties' understanding that separate-property portions of "any pension" received by the husband would not be subject to distribution.

Third Department Affirms Initial Custody Award Made without Evidentary Hearing

In Matter of Cole v Cole, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4975299, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07328
(NYAD 3 Dept) Petitioner (father) and respondent (mother) were the parents of two sons (born in 2007 and 2008). In June 2010, the father filed a petition for custody of the children. He thereafter left the marital residence at the home of the maternal grandmother, and relocated to the paternal grandmother's home. In July 2010, the mother filed a petition seeking custody of the children. At the initial appearance, Family Court assigned an attorney for the children and temporarily ordered joint legal custody of the children with physical custody to the mother and, when the mother was working, childcare provided by the father at the maternal grandmother's home. At the next appearance, the father requested shared physical custody of the children and Family Court granted this as to weekends, when the mother was working. At the third and final appearance, in November 2010, Family Court issued a final order essentially based upon this same arrangement. The Appellate Division affirmed. It rejected the mother’s argument that Family Court erred by issuing a final order without conducting a hearing or engaging in other formalities such as placing stipulations or consent of the parties upon the record. An evidentiary hearing is generally necessary to determine custody matters, but it is not obligatory where, as here, no request is made and the court has sufficient information to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the [children's] best interests. Although no sworn testimony was taken, all three appearances before Family Court were attended by each of the parents, their respective attorneys, and both grandmothers, and the court invited and received input from all involved. The attorney for the children attended the two later
appearances, and advocated a position based on interviews with the mother, her
employer, the father and various service providers for the children. Further, the
Chemung County Department of Social Services provided Family Court with a report
assessing the needs of the children and the current family circumstances. The two
parents, with the support of the two grandmothers, were essentially collaborating
relative to the matters of sharing time and the responsibilities of caring for their children during the course of the proceedings, and Family Court found this structure in the best interests of the children. Although the mother was represented by counsel at all three appearances, at no time did she or her counsel request a hearing or other formalities. Upon review, it found that Family Court had sufficient information before it to support the determination.

Third Department Holds that In Neglect Proceeding Attorney for Children May Advocate a Different Position When the Children's Wishes Would Likely "Result in a Substantial Risk of Imminent, Serious Harm to the Children

In Matter of Alyson J, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 5083950 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) a neglect proceeding, the Appellate Division disagreed with respondent's contention that the attorney for the children failed to adequately represent the children's interests. It pointed out that the duty of the attorney for the children is to advocate and express the children's wishes to the court, but on occasion it is acceptable for counsel to deviate from this obligation; the attorney is specifically allowed to advocate a different position when the children's wishes would likely "result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the child[ren]" (Citing (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d][3]; see Matter of Mark T. v. Joyanna U., 64 A.D.3d 1092, 1093-1094 [2009], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 715 [2010] ). Here, counsel had been involved with the children for several years and was well aware of their conditions, and the Appellate Division accepted the contrary position as in the best interests of the children. At the fact-finding hearing, the attorney for the children did indicate his clients' wishes, and properly informed Family Court that
he was deviating from them.

Important New Decisions - November 1, 2011

2011-11-02T02:29:00.000-04:00

Factors Set Forth in Family Court Act 413(1)(F) Should Be Considered Only Where Court Is Able to Calculate Basic Child Support Obligation Pursuant to Family Court Act 413(1)(C), Not Where Calculated Pursuant to Family Court Act 413[1][K]

In Salvatore D. V Shyou H., --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4975542 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.), the Appellate Division affirmed an order which directed respondent to pay $950 a month for the support of the parties' child. It held that the Support Magistrate properly ordered child support based on the needs of the child, since respondent presented insufficient evidence to determine her gross income ( Family Court Act 413[1][k]). Respondent's stated expenses were more than twice the income reflected on her tax return. The Support Magistrate found incredible respondent's testimony regarding her employment, her living situation and loans from her employer and brother. The Support Magistrate properly declined to consider the factors set forth in Family Court Act 413(1)(f), including the child's receipt of Social Security disability benefits. Such factors should be considered only where, unlike here, the court is able to calculate the basic child support obligation pursuant to Family Court Act 413(1)(c). Respondent's testimony, including that she was a well-known esthetician with celebrity clients and 22 years of experience, supported the Support Magistrate's determination that she is able to pay the child support obligation. The Support Magistrate was not required to rely on respondent's account of her finances.

Third Department Holds That Emancipation by Employment Occurs Only When Child Attains Economic Independence. Fact That Child May Work Full Time Is Not Determinative Even Where Child Lives on His/her Own.

In Drumm v Drumm, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4975452 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.)
Petitioner ( mother) and respondent (father) were the divorced parents of three children, Miranda, Nicholas and Matthew (born in 1990, 1994 and 1997, respectively). In May 2006, the parties entered into a separation agreement, pursuant to the terms of which they agreed to share physical custody of their children and to divide equally, among other things, the cost of the children's health insurance and any uncovered medical expenses. In apparent contemplation of that arrangement, the parties agreed to waive any child support "at [that] time." Although not entirely clear from the record, it appeared that Miranda and Nicholas thereafter elected to reside primarily with the mother, prompting the parties to enter into stipulations of settlement that referred various issues to Family Court, including child support for Miranda and Nicholas and the parties' respective obligations for the children's health care costs. The
separation agreement, as modified, was incorporated but not merged into the
parties' May 2009 amended judgment of divorce. In September 2009, the mother and the father entered into an order on consent wherein they agreed to, among other things, grant each other a "right of first refusal" during any period of time when the parent having physical custody of Matthew would be absent for five hours or longer. As the father often was required to work on weekends, he offered--and the mother frequently accepted-- the additional parenting time with Matthew. Shortly after entering into this stipulation, the mother commenced s modification proceeding contending that, having availed herself of the opportunity to spend more time with Matthew, she now had physical custody of him more than 50% of the time and, as such, was entitled to child support. Following a hearing, the Support Magistrate found that the mother's decision to exercise her right of first refusal did not alter the parties' shared custody arrangement as to Matthew and, therefore, the mother was not entitled to child support for him. The Support Magistrate further determined that Miranda became emancipated in June 2008 when she graduated from high school and obtained full-time employment and limited any award of support for Miranda accordingly. Family Court, sua sponte, dismissed the mother's subsequent objections to the Support Magistrate's order as untimely and, upon reargument, adhered to its prior decision. The Appellate Division reversed. It found that the record did not support Family Court's finding that the mother's objections were filed outside the 35-day window set forth in Family Ct Act 439(e) and held that Family Court erred in refusing to entertain the mother's objections on the merits. The Appellate Division held that with regard to the mother's request for child support for Matthew, the mere fact that the mother elected to exercise her right of first refusal with respect to this particular child did not fundamentally alter the parties' shared custody arrangement. At best, the mother's election resulted in her choosing to spend an additional three or four days each month with her son. In its view, regardless of the burden of proof employed, this minor and entirely voluntary "change in circumstances" was insufficient to warrant the mother's request for child support as to this child.
However, it found merit to the mother's objection regarding Miranda's alleged emancipation. A parent is statutorily obligated to support his or her child until the age of 21 (see Family Ct Act 413[1] ) unless the child is sooner emancipated, which occurs, insofar as is relevant here, when the child attains economic independence through employment. The fact that a child may work full time is not determinative, as
a child cannot be deemed economically independent if he or she still relies upon a
parent for significant economic support. This remains true even where, as here, the child in question no longer resides with one of the parties, for long as the child is still
dependent on one of them for a significant portion of his or her support. Here, although the father testified that Miranda went to work full time after graduating from high school, the record fell short of establishing that she had achieved economic independence. Notably, there was no documentation of Miranda's salary or expenses or the degree to which she continued to receive financial support from her mother. Accordingly, the Support Magistrate's determination in this regard could not stand. The Court was also persuaded that the Support Magistrate erred in failing to achieve some level of parity between the parties by consistently using their respective projected incomes for 2009 in computing child support. Although the Support Magistrate's decision to utilize the mother's projected income for 2009 instead of her actual income for 2008 was well founded (due to nonrecurring income that the mother received in the prior year), no similar explanation was offered for electing to use the father's actual 2008 income instead of his projected--and presumably higher--income for 2009. The record failed to disclose a valid reason for failing to utilize similar income valuations for both parties
when computing their respective support obligations for Miranda and Nicholas. The orders were reversed, on the law and the matter remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court's decision.
In a footnote the Court pointed out that to the extent that the parties' separation agreement defined emancipation as, among other things, a "child establishing a permanent residence away from his or her custodial parent," it noted that "the parties cannot contract away the duty of child support" (Matter of Thomas B. v. Lydia D., 69 A.D.3d 24, 30 [2009] ).

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Requires Reversal of Neglect Orders

In Matter of Jaikob O., --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4974840 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) the Appellate Division reversed an order which granted petitioner's application to adjudicate the children to be neglected. The Appellate Division held that as a result of deficiencies in the representation provided by his assigned trial counsel at the fact-finding hearing, he was denied meaningful representation. It found that counsel's ineffectiveness permeated the proceedings. At the fact-finding hearing, counsel failed to make an opening statement or to cross-examine petitioner's witnesses on relevant matters such as the children's exposure to respondent's allegedly neglectful conduct during the relevant time period (i.e., February to June 2008). Counsel's cross-examination of the mother and the wife, both clearly young victims of disturbing domestic violence, was at points tasteless and irrelevant, even prurient. Counsel made no motions at the close of petitioner's case and no closing arguments, stating only, "I think everything's been said." Counsel never submitted, as directed by Family Court, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Likewise, petitioner submitted no findings or conclusions of law. Notably, at the close of the fact-finding hearing, Family Court merely stated that it found petitioner's witnesses to be "credible," but made no finding of neglect, deferring its decision thereon. Surprisingly, counsel then consented to immediately proceeding to a dispositional hearing. Particularly disturbing on the issue of whether counsel provided meaningful representation was a letter sent by counsel to respondent in prison after the fact-finding hearing, but before a neglect determination was issued, in response to his request for a new attorney. The letter contained a not-so-subtle threat that counsel would not send respondent anything, or convey any information to or cooperate with his next attorney, if he pursued a change of attorneys; counsel also flaunted that he had achieved financial success, upon which he elaborated, with his "clients who have money" and essentially did not need this assignment. The Appellate Division found that the letter was inappropriate and served to undermine any confidence respondent might have had in counsel effectively representing him. Accordingly, the fact-finding order was reversed. In light of the foregoing, all proceedings at which counsel represented respondent subsequent to the fact-finding hearing and order were invalid.
It also deemed it important to point out that, with regard to the dispositional hearing, counsel failed to object to petitioner's oral motion to dispense with its duty to make diligent reunification efforts for respondent and the children based upon the termination, years earlier, of respondent's (and the wife's) parental rights to their three oldest children. Such a motion by petitioner was required to be "in writing " and on notice to respondent, allowing him "the opportunity to gather evidence and raise issues of fact in answering papers and prepare for an evidentiary hearing". Moreover, absolutely no proof was offered by any party at the dispositional hearing addressing the children's "best interests" either on the propriety of terminating reasonable reunification efforts (see Family Ct. Act 1039-b[b][6] [last paragraph] ) or on the ultimate disposition upon the neglect finding (see Family Ct. Act 1045, 1052); the current status and placement of the children was not disclosed at the hearing or in the dispositional order. Counsel filed no notice of appeal from the resulting dispositional order. As respondent was denied meaningful representation by trial counsel at the fact-finding hearing, the fact-finding order, as well as the subsequent resulting orders of Family Court, could not stand.

Third Department Holds That Evidence of Child’s Needs Not Necessary in Fixing Child Support. CSSA Creates Rebuttable Presumption Guidelines Contained Will Yield Correct Amount of Child Support.

In Matter of Marcklinger v Liebert, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4975510 (NYAD 3 Dept)
in a prior appeal in this child support case, the Appellate Division rejected petitioner's contention that the Support Magistrate improperly considered the parties' combined income exceeding $80,000 in the calculation of the basic child support obligation for their unemancipated child, but remitted the matter to Family Court for an articulation of a rationale for using the statutory percentage rather than the so-called "paragraph (f)" factors or a combination of both (72 A.D.3d 1431 [2010] ). Upon remittal, the Support Magistrate recalculated petitioner's support obligation, using a higher adjusted gross income for respondent as petitioner had previously requested and in accordance with Family Court's prior order, which reflected respondent's receipt of maintenance payments from petitioner. This resulted in petitioner's pro rata share being decreased to 57.65% and respondent's share being increased to 42.35%. The Support Magistrate then applied the statutory percentage set forth in the Child Support Standards Act to the parties' total combined income--first to the portion up to $80,000 and then to the portion that exceeds that amount--and determined that petitioner's pro rata share amounted to $256 per week. The Appellate Division affirmed. It noted that in his amended order, the Support Magistrate reasoned that the application of the statutory percentage yielded an amount that was "neither unjust nor inappropriate" considering that (1) the child would have enjoyed an enhanced standard of living had the parties remained married, (2) the $80,000 cap had not been adjusted for inflation since 1989, (3) the income disparity between the parties, and (4) petitioner did not offer any reason for a contrary finding. This articulation of reasoning indicated that the Support Magistrate carefully considered the parties' circumstances and found no reason to depart from the prescribed percentage. Although petitioner faulted respondent for not submitting evidence of the child's needs, application of the CSSA "creates a rebuttable presumption that the guidelines contained therein will yield the correct amount of child support" and, if petitioner believed that his presumptive pro rata share was unjust or inappropriate, it was his burden to establish such.

Appellate Division Holds Family Court Has Jurisdiction to Determine Paternity of Child Born to Married Woman Rejecting Argument Based upon Statutory Definitions of "Child," "Mother" and "Father" Limiting Those Terms to Situations Involving "A Child Born out of Wedlock"

In Matter of Nathan O v Jennifer P, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4975692 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) up until at least April 6, 2009, petitioner and respondent Jennifer P.
( mother) engaged in a sexual relationship, although they disputed when that relationship ended. In mid-April 2009, the mother engaged in a sexual relationship and began cohabiting with respondent Uwe P. The mother married Uwe P. in June 2009 and gave birth to a child on December 6, 2009. At the time of the birth, Uwe P. was listed as the child's father on the birth certificate. Shortly after the child's birth, petitioner filed two petitions seeking a declaration of paternity and either custody or visitation. Uwe P. cross-petitioned for a declaration of paternity. Family Court denied the mother's motion to dismiss the petitions and ordered the parties and child to submit to DNA testing, with the results sealed pending further proceedings. During a hearing to address whether the presumption of legitimacy should preclude DNA testing (see Family Ct Act 532 [a] ), the parties consented to unsealing the DNA test results, which revealed a high likelihood that petitioner was the biological father. The parties then stipulated to an order of parenting time for petitioner, subject to respondents'
right to appeal the court's ruling on jurisdiction and standing. Over respondents'
objections, Family Court declared that petitioner was the father of the child, entered an order of filiation to that effect, and dismissed Uwe P.'s paternity petition. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Respondents argued on appeal that the court had no jurisdiction to determine paternity of a child born to a married woman. The argument was based upon statutory definitions of "child," "mother" and "father" limiting those terms to situations involving "a
child born out of wedlock" (Family Ct Act 512). The Appellate Division held that Respondents' interpretation could not not be harmonized with other aspects of Family Ct Act article 5. For example, their interpretation is belied by the statutory phrase "presumption of legitimacy of a child born to a married woman" (Family Ct Act 532[a] ); the use of the word "married" would be unnecessary and superfluous under respondents' view. Considering the broad grant of jurisdiction in the N.Y. Constitution and in Family Ct Act 511, along with the numerous cases where courts have addressed paternity of children born to married mothers and the conflict between the definitions in Family Ct Act 512 and other aspects of Family Ct Act article 5, it held that Family Court has subject matter jurisdiction to address the paternity of a child born to a married woman. As a "person alleging to be the father," petitioner had standing to
commence a paternity proceeding (Family Ct Act 522). Family Ct Act 523 only requires
the petition to allege that a certain individual is the father of the subject child. A party seeking paternity testing under the Family Ct Act need not provide factual support for the allegations of paternity or nonpaternity; he or she need only articulate some basis for them," sufficient to show that a nonfrivolous controversy exists regarding paternity. In his application filed less than a month after the child's birth, petitioner alleged that he engaged in a sexual relationship with the mother during the probable time of conception, that the mother was not married at that time, and that he was the child's father. This information was sufficient to commence the paternity proceeding. Respondents consented--during the middle of a hearing--to Family Court unsealing the DNA test results. Upon learning of those results, the parties stipulated to the entry of an order of visitation to petitioner, subject to respondents' reservation of the right to appeal based on the court's ruling regarding jurisdiction and standing. In light of their consent, with this limited reservation of rights, respondents waived their argument that Family Court was required to conduct a full hearing concerning the child's best interests (see Family Ct Act 532[a] ) before issuing an order of filiation. Hence, it did not address that argument.

Family Court Erred by Granting the Father's Motion for Summary Judgment Modifying Custody Order Without Allowing Mother Opportunity to Present Evidence. Due Process Requires That a Parent Be Afforded "A Full and Fair Opportunity to Be Heard

In Matter of Jeffrey JJ v Stephanie KK, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4975012 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) Petitioner ( father) and respondent (mother) were the parents of a daughter (born in 2003). Pursuant to a prior order of custody, the parties' apparently shared legal custody of the child; the mother had primary physical custody and the father had liberal visitation time. The father commenced a proceeding seeking primary physical custody of the child after the Rensselaer County Department of Social Services commenced a neglect proceeding against the mother and her husband (stepfather) after receiving a report that the stepfather had been intoxicated while driving with the mother, the subject child and another child in the vehicle. At the fact-finding hearing, the father presented evidence of an existing order of protection that prohibited the stepfather from having any contact with the subject child until July 30, 2010. The father then made an oral motion for Family Court to award him custody, which the court granted over the mother's objection, after it concluded that it was "impossible [for] ... the child's primary residence to be with the mother[,] who is living with [the stepfather,] against whom there is an order of protection." The court further concluded that the issue of the child's best interests had "almost been determined by virtue of the fact that there is an order of protection against" the stepfather. The court then awarded the father primary physical custody of the child with parenting time to the mother. The Appellate Division agreed with the mother that Family Court erred by granting the father's motion without allowing her an opportunity to present any evidence. In a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 6 seeking modification of a prior custody order, a full and comprehensive hearing is required. At such hearing, due process requires that a parent be afforded "a full and fair opportunity to be heard. Family Court violated the mother's due process rights when it granted the father's motion for summary judgment on the petition without permitting the mother an opportunity to present any evidence, call any witnesses, or even testify on her own behalf. While the court believed that the order of protection against the stepfather rendered it impossible for it to award the mother primary physical custody, on cross-examination the stepfather indicated that he was willing to move out of the mother's residence until that order expired. However, the mother was denied an opportunity to present evidence regarding the feasibility of this plan when the court granted the father's motion. In a footnote the court observed that the prior order was not included in the record on appeal, which omission ordinarily results in dismissal of the appeal (see Matter of Pratt v. Anthony, 30 A.D.3d 708, 815 N.Y.S.2d 832 [2006] ). However, since there was no dispute as to the terms of the prior order, which were put on the record in open court by Family Court, it decided to reach the merits of this appeal.

Important New Decisions - October 19, 2011

2011-10-19T10:02:00.001-04:00

Maintenance Award Should Not Provide for an Automatic Increase upon the Prospective Emancipation of Each of Parties' Children

In O’Brien v O’Brien, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4839062 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff former wife had an annual income of $33,262 from all sources, and the defendant former husband had an annual income of $115,747 from all sources. The parties were divorced by judgment dated November 30, 2009. In addition to child support of $2,625 per month, plus support arrears, the Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff maintenance in the amount of $1,375 per month over a period of 10 years, to increase as each of the parties' six children becomes emancipated, so that the plaintiff would receive the total sum of $4,000 per month in combined child support and maintenance for a period of 10 years, plus maintenance arrears. The Supreme Court also awarded the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the amount of $10,000. The plaintiff was to remain in the marital residence and pay all carrying costs. The Appellate Division pointed out that the awards of child support, maintenance, arrears, and an attorney's fee were based upon the Supreme Court's calculation of the parties' respective incomes. It found that Supreme Court made a mathematical error in calculating the plaintiff's income. The numbers reflecting the various components of the plaintiff's annual income, as set forth by the Supreme Court in its decision, added up to a total of $54,163, not $33,262, as erroneously stated by the Supreme Court. It pointed out that a court has the inherent power to relieve a party from judgments taken through mistake or inadvertence in the interest of justice, and directed that the awards of child support, maintenance, arrears, and an attorney's fee had to be recalculated based on the correct figures. It also found that with respect to one of the components of the defendant's annual income, the Supreme Court attributed an incorrect amount. Three of the components were supported by the record. However, the record did not support the Supreme Court's calculation and imputation of $15,376 in annual benefits from the defendant's employer for use of an automobile and cell phone, along with the employer's payment of expenses attributable to the use of those items. It observed that Domestic Relations Law 240(1-b)(b)(5)(iv)(B) provides that the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, "attribute or impute income from ... automobiles or other perquisites that are provided as part of compensation for employment to the extent [they] constitute expenditures for personal use, or ... directly or indirectly confer personal economic benefits." Here, although the defendant's employer expended the sum of $15,376 in 2007 for the defendant's use of an automobile and cell phone and related expenses, the amount attributable to income was considerably smaller in light of the defendant's testimony that only 10% of his use of the automobile, and only a "portion" of his use of the cell phone, were personal uses. The Appellate Division observed that upon remittal for recalculation, the discrepancy between the parties' incomes would necessarily be smaller than previously calculated, and, the defendant's pro rata share of the basic child support obligation had to be recalculated. It also directed that upon remittal, the Supreme Court had to recalculate the award of maintenance based upon factors including the parties' respective incomes as recalculated, their pre-divorce standard of living, and the financial resources of each, considered separately, balancing the plaintiff's needs with the defendant's ability to pay. The Appellate Division held that that the maintenance award should not provide for an automatic increase upon the prospective emancipation of each of the parties' children. Maintenance is designed to give the spouse economic independence and should continue only as long as necessary to render the recipient self-supporting. The award should meet the recipient spouse's reasonable needs while providing an appropriate incentive for the recipient to become financially independent. The amount of the maintenance award is a discretionary determination based upon a number of interrelated facts then in existence; unless a future event is imminent and measurable, an award of maintenance should not include a provision for increase or decrease upon the happening of a particular future event. Here, the provision for automatic increase of maintenance upon the emancipation of each of the parties' children ignored other factors which may come into existence at the time of each child's emancipation. Therefore, the parties' changing needs are best addressed in a future application for modification of the amount of maintenance.
The Appellate Division found, based upon the apparent discrepancy between the parties' income and other circumstances, that Supreme Court did not improvidently award the plaintiff an attorney's fee. However, the amount of the award was premised upon an erroneous calculation of the parties' respective incomes. It directed that upon remittal, the Supreme Court should recalculate an appropriate award to the plaintiff of an attorney's fee.

Deprivation of Right to Counsel In a Custody or Visitation Proceeding is Denial of a Fundamental Right Which Requires Reversal

In Matter of Rosof v Mallory, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4839081 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) at the commencement of a hearing to determine whether the father should have only supervised visitation with his daughter, the father's attorney asked to be relieved, and the father consented to her discharge. The father asked that new counsel be appointed, but the Family Court declined to do so, and the father represented himself. The Appellate Division held that the father, as a respondent in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, had the right to be represented by counsel. To determine whether a party is validly waiving the right to counsel, the court must conduct a "searching inquiry" in order to be reasonably certain that the party understands the dangers and disadvantages of giving up the fundamental right to counsel. Here, the Family Court conducted no inquiry at all to determine whether the father was waiving the right to counsel. Requiring the father to try the matter without the benefit of counsel impermissibly placed the Family Court's interest in preventing delay above the interests of the parents and the child, and violated the father's right to be represented by counsel. The deprivation of a party's fundamental right to counsel in a custody or visitation proceeding is a denial of due process which requires reversal, regardless of the merits of the unrepresented party's position . The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a new hearing on the mother's petition and a new determination.

Supreme Court Finds No Basis for a Presumption That a Parent's Obligation to Pay for College Is to Be Limited to the Cost of a Suny Education Unless Proven Otherwise

In Pamela T v Marc B., --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4861584 (N.Y.Sup.) the Supreme Court concluded that the proposition that before a parent can be compelled to contribute towards the cost of a private college there must be a showing that a child cannot receive an adequate education at a state college is a doctrine that in many cases is harmful to the children of divorced parents, acts to discriminate against them, and is largely unworkable.
The parties were divorced on December 23, 2008. They had two sons, one who was 18 and one who was 16. The judgment of divorce incorporated a custody agreement and a stipulation of settlement by which the parties had resolved all issues of the divorce except for those concerning child support. No mention was made in either the decision, the custody agreement or the stipulation of settlement as to the payment of the children's college tuition and expenses. In 2007, the elder child was diagnosed with "moderate emotional difficulty" and learning/anxiety disorders, which necessitated certain educational accommodations. Despite this diagnosis, he graduated in 2011 from Beacon High School, a selective public high school in Manhattan. He was accepted at Syracuse University, SUNY Binghamton and SUNY Buffalo, along with a number of other schools. Syracuse, which awarded him $3,000 in financial aid, cost approximately $53,000 a year to attend as an undergraduate, while SUNY Binghamton and SUNY Buffalo cost only about $18,000 a year. Although the child visited Binghamton and gave serious consideration to going there, he ultimately decided to attend Syracuse. He was now a freshman there studying computer engineering and computer graphics.
The parties were both practicing attorneys in New York City. Plaintiff worked for
the Metropolitan Transit Authority Inspector General's Office and defendant was
self-employed as a solo practitioner. Plaintiff's 2010 federal income tax return reported adjusted gross income of $109,896. Defendant's 2010 federal income tax return reported adjusted gross income of $105,135. Plaintiff's net worth statement showed she had assets of approximately $1,230,000. Defendant's net worth statement showed he had approximately $580,000. Both plaintiff and defendant went to private undergraduate colleges and law schools, with plaintiff graduating from Northwestern University and New York University School of Law, and defendant graduating from Columbia University and Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
Defendant did not oppose an order directing him to contribute to his older child's college education, but he asked the court to apply the SUNY cap and limit his responsibility to a percentage of the costs of a state university education rather than to a percentage of a private college education. Defendant's position was based on his claim that he was unable to meet the financial demands of paying for private college and on his belief that his son could receive as good an education at SUNY Binghamton as he could at Syracuse.
Supreme Court observed that Domestic Relations Law 240(1- b)(c)(7) conferred upon the courts of this state the authority to "direct a parent to contribute to a child's private college education, even in the absence of special circumstances or a voluntary agreement. The statute provides that when a court exercises its discretion to direct such a contribution from a parent, it is to do so "having regard for the circumstances of the case and the parties, the best interests of the child, and the requirements of justice." Case law augmented the provisions of DRL 240(1-b)(c)(7) by setting forth specific factors that are to be considered in determining whether to award college expenses. These factors include the educational background of the parents and their financial ability to provide the necessary funds, the child's academic ability and endeavors, and the type of college that would be most suitable for the child. (See Rosado v. Hughes, 23 AD3d 318 (1st Dept 2005); Naylor v. Gastler, 48 AD3d 951 (3d Dept 2008); Reiss v. Reiss, 56 AD3d 1293 (4th Dept 2008).
The Court observed that DRL 240(1-b)(c)(7) does not provide for is a SUNY cap. The SUNY cap is a concept that has been judicially created by way of a string of decisions rendered since the enactment of the statute. The problem with these cases was that they provided little in the way of instruction as to when a SUNY cap might be properly applied over the objection of the parent who is seeking an award for college
expenses. The Supreme Court found that Berliner v. Berliner, 33 AD3d 745, 749 (2d Dept 2006) was instructive because the Second Department’s statement that there "is no basis in this record" for imposing the SUNY cap implied that the burden falls on the proponent of the cap to demonstrate that it is warranted. The inference to be drawn is that there is no presumption that a parent's obligation to pay for college is to be limited to the cost of a SUNY education unless proven otherwise; if anything, the presumption goes the other direction. It was also instructive because the decision's reference to the "so-called SUNY cap' "can be seen as an indication that even the Second Department views the SUNY cap as something less than an established doctrine firmly ensconced in the fabric of family law.
Supreme Court rejected defendants argument that plaintiff be required to prove that Syracuse was a better school than SUNY Binghamton in order for him to be required to pay Syracuse's higher expenses. He noted that it is difficult to conceive of a workable procedure, let alone a methodology, for a court to make a finding that one college is "better" than another. He stated that the real issue is what college or university is the best for the individual child in question in the ways that matter most to that particular child. The Court found that it had been shown that there was ample reason to support the child's choice of Syracuse, irrespective of whether it is ranked lower, higher or the same as SUNY Binghamton or any other SUNY school. Provided that the funds are available to finance the child's education, the fact that Syracuse was a private school and cost more than a public school was not a reason to interfere with the child going to the school he chose and he wanted to attend. This was particularly so in light of the fact that both his parents went to private colleges. One of the
factors to be considered when making a determination under DRL 240(1-b)(c)(7) is the parents educational background. Inasmuch as plaintiff attended Northwestern and defendant attended Columbia, it could reasonably be assumed that there would exist an expectation in the family, and in the child himself, that he too could attend a private college.
Having found that the child's academic ability and endeavors, the type of college
that would be most suitable for him, and the educational background of the parents
were all factors that called for plaintiff to contribute to his son's education at
Syracuse University, the court had to consider the defendant's ability to pay. It was defendant's position that even though plaintiff may have the means to pay the high cost of their son attending Syracuse, he lacked the means to do so. Consequently, he contended that he should have to pay no more than $9,000 a year towards his son's education, an amount that is roughly 50% of the present annual cost of a SUNY school.
The court rejected defendant's contention as to his inability to pay a significant
share of the child's actual educational expenses being incurred at Syracuse. It was true that plaintiff has considerable more savings than defendant and that she had a pension plan through her employment. But it was equally true that defendant's net income the past year was over $100,000, which was only about $5,000 less than plaintiff's net income for the same period, and that he benefitted from the substantial tax deductions and write offs that come from being self-employed. Also, defendant, although remarried for a number of years, had chosen to keep a second apartment in addition to the residence he shared with his new wife. Defendant had paid and continued to pay a very small amount in basic child support and child support add-ons. If defendant's child support obligation were to be recalculated using his 2010 income, it would be far higher than the $686 monthly that he paid.
Supreme Court held that there was no basis to impose the SUNY cap, to the extent that it should be imposed at all, where the party seeking to invoke the cap has the financial ability to contribute towards the actual amount of his or her child's college expenses. (Citing R.E. v. S.E., 27 Misc.3d 1216(A); Bonnie B. v. Michael B., 6 Misc.3d 1004(A), 2004 WL 3050804 (Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2004). It found that the defendant had the income and the assets, as well as the ability to keep producing substantial income through his law practice, to make a significant contribution to his sons's college education. Although defendant's contribution should be less than plaintiff's, based on the difference between their net assets, and in particular what each of them had available for eventual retirement, that contribution should not be subject to some artificial construct like the SUNY cap. Rather, it should be based, as with all other child support obligations, on the respective finances of the parties. On this basis, the court concluded that defendant shall be obligated to contribute 40% of the total cost of the elder child attending Syracuse University, with those costs to include tuition, room and board, fees and books.
The Court observed that it has the discretion to direct parents to pay the
costs of their children's college expenses when the separation agreement or other
stipulation between the parents is silent in this respect. However, such a directive is premature when college is several years away, the choice of college and the cost of tuition are uncertain, and the child's academic interests and abilities are not supported by evidence. (Citing Gilkes v. Gilkes, 150 A.D.2d 200, 201 (1st Dept 1989); see also LaBombardi v. LaBombardi, 220 A.D.2d 642, 644 (2d Dept 1995). Here, college was more than a year and a half away for the younger child. It was therefore premature and unduly speculative to attempt to assess what the child's plans are with regard to college and the what the costs will be. As a result, plaintiff's application for this relief was denied without prejudice to renew at a subsequent date when the child has committed to attend college and the costs of attendance are supported by evidence.

Important New Decisions - October 14, 2011

2011-10-14T10:12:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court May Not Determine Whether the Marriage Is Irretrievably Broken until All Ancillary Issues Are Resolved.

In Schiffer v Schiffer, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4790060 (N.Y.Sup.) plaintiff husband moved for an order directing that summary judgment be granted in his favor of divorce under Domestic Relations Law 170 (7). The defendant wife opposed the application and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The parties were married in Massachusetts on March 25, 1990 and had three unemancipated children of the marriage. On November 29, 2010, Mr. Schiffer commenced the action for divorce, claiming irretrievable breakdown of the marriage for a period of more than six months prior to the commencement of the action. On December 21, 2010, Mrs. Schiffer served her verified answer, contesting these allegations, specifically claiming that Mr. Schiffer's actions belied his claims that the marriage was irretrievably broken. The Supreme Court observed that Domestic Relations Law § 170 [7] allows parties to seek a judgment of divorce when "the relationship between the husband and wife has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months, provided that one party has so stated under oath" also provides that "no judgment of divorce shall be granted under this subdivision unless and until the economic issues of equitable distribution of marital property, the
payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of child support, the payment of counsel and experts' fees and expenses as well as the custody and visitation with the infant children of the marriage have been resolved by the parties, or determined by the court and incorporated into this judgment of divorce".
The Supreme Court agreed with the wife’s argument that the husband was not entitled to summary judgment since no judgment of divorce can be made unless and until the economic and custodial issues are determined or resolved by the parties. The statute clearly states that a judgment may only be granted after economic and custodial issues were resolved. In this case, all of the conditions of the statute had not been met since the economic and custodial issues were yet to be addressed. Mr. Schiffer had failed to meet his prima facie burden, and his motion for summary judgment was denied.
Mrs. Schiffer's motion for summary judgment was also denied, but for a different reason. Supreme Court observed that in Strack v. Strack (31 Misc.3d 258 [Sup Ct, Essex County 2011] ), Justice Muller held that the "determination of whether a breakdown of a marriage is irretrievable is a question to be determined by the finder of fact." This holding demonstrably agreed with fundamental concepts of due process and comported with similar interpretations of no-fault statutes from our sister states. Since the sole means of procuring a divorce in New York is by judicial process (N.Y. Const, art I, s 9), precluding a party from contesting a ground for divorce "must be regarded as the equivalent of denying [him or her] an opportunity to be heard ...and in the absence of a sufficient countervailing justification for the State's action, a denial of due process". A contrary finding would merely reduce the court to a rubber stamp whenever presented with an action for divorce under Domestic Relations Law 170 (7). While Mrs. Schiffer had established that the ancillary issues were not resolved and that her marriage to Mr. Schiffer had not broken down irretrievably, Mr. Schiffer raised a triable issue of fact that the marriage was irretrievably broken for at least six months. The proof bared by the parties sufficed to establish a true issue of fact as to whether this marriage was irretrievably broken, which the finder of fact would undoubtedly resolve after the other issues were resolved.

A Court May Not Delegate to a Parenting Coordinator the Authority to Resolve Issues Affecting the Best Interests of the Children

In Silbowitz v Silbowitz, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4599852 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court which, in effect, granted the defendant former husband's motion to appoint a parenting coordinator to assist the parties in implementing the terms of their existing child custody and visitation arrangement provided for in the parties' stipulation dated October 22, 2007.
It observed that although a court may properly appoint a parenting coordinator to mediate between parties and oversee the implementation of their court-ordered parenting plan a court may not delegate to a parenting coordinator the authority to resolve issues affecting the best interests of the children. Here, despite the expansive scope of the issues entrusted to the parenting coordinator by the Supreme Court's order, his power was properly limited to implementing the terms of the existing child custody and visitation arrangement provided for in the parties' stipulation dated October 22, 2007, subject to the Supreme Court's oversight. Although the parenting coordinator was empowered to issue a written decision resolving a conflict where he was unable to broker an agreement between the parties, the Supreme Court's order also provided that the parties may seek to have the parenting coordinator's decision so-ordered by the Supreme Court and that they "retain their right to return to Court and seek a modification of their parenting plan at any time." Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly limited the role of the parenting coordinator and properly provided that his resolutions remained subject to court oversight.
The plaintiff also contended that the order insufficiently protected the confidential and privileged information of the parties and the children because it required the parties to execute authorizations and releases allowing the parenting coordinator to obtain information which was otherwise confidential or privileged. However, the order required that the parenting coordinator maintain the confidentiality of the information and when read as a whole, clearly limited his authority to request authorizations or releases and use information only in furtherance of his duty to mediate between the parties in the implementation of their parenting plan. Accordingly, no further limitation was necessary.

Supreme Court Properly Declined to Imply a Term Which the Parties Did Not Insert into Their Stipulation, for the Purpose of Determining the Contempt Motion. Court Has Discretion to Decide If it Will Consider New Argument in Reply Papers.

In Penavic v Penavic, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4600442 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the the plaintiff moved, pursuant to Judiciary Law 756 to hold the defendant in civil contempt. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Divison affirmed. It held that to prevail on a motion to punish a party for civil contempt, the movant must demonstrate that the party charged with contempt willfully violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of a court's order, with knowledge of that order's terms, thereby prejudicing the movant's rights. Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her motion to hold the defendant in contempt for failing to remove her name from a home equity line of credit ( HELOC) or closing it. While the plaintiff was aware of the HELOC at the time that she executed the stipulation, no provision was included in the stipulation requiring that her name be removed from it or that it be closed, even though the defendant was precluded from continuing to use the HELOC pursuant to the provision which prohibited him from incurring additional debt upon the plaintiff's credit. Since the terms of the stipulation with respect to whether the HELOC had to be closed were unambiguous, the Supreme Court properly declined to imply a term which the parties did not insert into the stipulation, for the purpose of determining the contempt motion. The plaintiff raised, for the first time in her reply papers, the argument that the defendant was also in contempt of the judgment by increasing the balance of the HELOC from $25,000, the amount of the balance at the time that the parties executed the stipulation, to $750,000, which he disclosed in his affidavit opposing the plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division held that it was within the Supreme Court's discretion to decide if it would consider this new argument. Inasmuch as the plaintiff did not address this provision in her motion papers and relied solely upon the provisions concerning the acknowledgment that the bills or accounts for the former marital residence were solely in the husband's individual name as the basis for her motion, Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion to disregard that argument in connection with the motion before it (citing Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dawkins, 52 AD3d 826, 827).
Authors Note: In Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dawkins, the Appellate Division said: “The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant, not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments or new grounds for the requested relief (see Matter of Harleysville Ins. Co. v Rosario, 17 AD3d 677 [2005]; Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658 [1999]). Further, Dawkins was not afforded an opportunity to address the new argument (see Matter of Harleysville Ins. Co. v Rosario, 17 AD3d 677 [2005]; Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658 [1999]).”

Court May Not Order a Parent Undergo Counseling or Treatment as a Condition of Future Visitation or Re-application for Visitation Rights but May Direct a Party to Submit to a Mental Health Evaluation for Use in Any Future Determination of Visitation.

In Matter of Smith ex rel Hunter v Dawn F.B., --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4600469 (2d Dept 2011) Family Court granted the petition of the attorney for the child alleging that the mother violated an order of custody and visitation, prohibited her from having
any contact with her son, directed that she submit to a mental health evaluation,
directed her to follow treatment recommendations resulting from that evaluation,
and conditioned her application for resumption of visitation upon her compliance
with treatment, including medication, recommended by a mental health professional.
The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the provision conditioning the mother's application for resumption of visitation upon her compliance with treatment, including medication, recommended by a mental health professional. It found that Family Court's determination that it was in the child's best interest to suspend supervised visitation and prohibit all contact with the mother had a sound and substantial basis in the record. The mother, by her own admission, violated the express terms of the Family Court's previous order, which only permitted visitation supervised by designated individuals, by having unsupervised contact with the child at two separate little league baseball games. Moreover, the mother contributed to certain events at a recent therapeutic visit which adversely affected the child and undermined the progress of the therapeutic visitation.
The Appellate Division pointed out that a court may not order that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future visitation or re-application for visitation rights, but may only direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of visitation. Here, the Family Court improperly conditioned the mother's application for resumption of visitation upon her compliance with treatment, including medication, recommended by a mental health professional. However, the Family Court properly directed the mother to submit to a mental health evaluation for use in any future determination of visitation.

Family Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Article 8 Proceeding Where There Is No Intimate Relationship Between Parties

In Matter of Riedel v Vasquez, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4600481 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Family Court which, without a hearing, granted Respondents motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On August 10, 2010, the petitioner commenced an Article 8 proceeding seeking an order of protection against Milagros Carranza Vasquez (respondent), who was the estranged wife of the petitioner's live-in boyfriend. The petitioner had two children with the boyfriend, and the respondent had one child with him. The petitioner alleged that she and the respondent, who did not reside together, had an "intimate relationship" within the meaning of Family Court Act 812(1). The Family Court, without a hearing, dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division affirmed. It pointed out that the Family Court is a court of limited subject matter jurisdiction, and "cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute" (Matter of Johna M.S. v. Russell E.S., 10 N.Y.3d 364). Pursuant to Family Court Act 812(1), the Family Court's jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain prescribed acts that occur "between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household". Members of the same family or household include, among others, "persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time" (Family Ct Act 812[1])(e). Expressly excluded from the ambit of "intimate relationship," are "casual acquaintance[s]" and "ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts". Beyond those delineated exclusions, what qualifies as an "intimate relationship" within the meaning of Family Court Act 812(1)(e) is determined on a case-by-case basis. Relevant factors include the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship. Here, the parties had no direct relationship and were only connected through a third party, who was the biological father of the parties' respective children. The parties never resided together and did not take care of each other's children. The respondent's contact with the petitioner and/or her children had been minimal. Given these undisputed facts, no hearing was required, as the Family Court possessed sufficient information to determine that the parties were not and never had been in an "intimate relationship" as defined by Family Court Act s 812(1)(e).

Family Court Lacked Exclusive, Continuing Jurisdiction to Modify Custody Order Where Neither the Child Nor the Father Maintained a Significant Connection with New York, and Substantial Evidence Regarding the Child's Present and Future Welfare Was No Longer Available in this State.

In Knight v Morgan, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4600549 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the the Family Court issued an order of custody on consent, on August 24, 2009, in connection with the father's petition seeking joint custody of the subject child with the mother, awarding joint legal custody to both parents, with primary residential custody to the father. Accordingly, the child, who was born in 2000, and had resided with his mother in New York since his birth, moved to California in September 2009 to live with his father. After moving to California with the father, the child was diagnosed by a psychologist in California with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and, possibly, a bipolar disorder. The child received treatment from healthcare providers in California, and was not permitted to travel until his condition was stabilized. The child had not returned to New York since moving to California. In December 2009 the mother filed a cross petition in the Family Court, to modify the prior order of custody so as to award her sole custody of the child, in which she alleged that the father had falsely accused her of abusing the child. In January 2010 the father separately cross-petitioned to modify the prior custody order so as to award him sole custody of the child. Subsequently, in May 2010, while both cross petitions were pending, the father moved, inter alia, to dismiss the mother's cross petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After a hearing on the issue of jurisdiction, the Family Court granted that branch of the father's motion which was to dismiss the mother's cross petition on that ground. The Family Court did not address the father's separate cross petition.
The Appellate Division reversed. It held that the Family Court correctly determined that it lacked exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 76-a(1), since neither the child nor the father maintained a significant connection with New York, and substantial evidence regarding the child's present and future welfare was no longer available in this State (Domestic Relations Law 76-a[1][a]). However, the Family Court had jurisdiction to hear the mother's cross petition for modification pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 76-a(2) since it would have had jurisdiction for an initial child custody determination under Domestic Relations Law 76(1)(a). New York was the child's "home state" within the six months immediately preceding the commencement of this proceeding, and the mother continued to reside in this State. The matter was be remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings on the cross petitions.

New York Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where it Is Not State in Which Child Lived for at Least Six Consecutive Months Before Commencement of Custody Proceeding

In Jablonsky-Urso v Urso, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4600550 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division held that Family Court properly granted the father's motion to dismiss the mother’s petition for custody of the parties' son for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Domestic Relations Law 75-a (7) defines a child's home state as "the state in which a child lived with a parent ... for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding". Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, "[h]ome state jurisdiction is paramount and whether to accept jurisdiction is a home state prerogative" (Matter of Navarrete v. Wyatt, 52 A.D.3d at 836, 861 N.Y.S.2d 393). Here, the Family Court properly determined that New York was not the child's home state and, therefore, that New York did not have jurisdiction over this custody dispute (see Domestic Relations Law 76). However, it held that the Family Court erred in refusing to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction over the family offense petition (see Domestic Relations Law 76-c) and in summarily dismissing the family offense petition upon its finding that the allegations contained in the mother's family offense petition were insufficient to sustain a family offense. The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court and the allegations asserted in a petition seeking the issuance of an order of protection must be supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The Family Court improperly determined that the mother failed to demonstrate that the father possessed the intent required to sustain any of the family offenses alleged in the petition, as it did so without the benefit of a hearing. Based on the foregoing, that branch of the father's motion which was to dismiss the family offense petition had to be denied and the matter remitted to the Family Court, for a fact-finding hearing and a determination of the family offense petition with respect to the allegations contained therein.

Important New Decisions - October 13, 2011

2011-10-13T14:22:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court May Not Determine Whether the Marriage Is Irretrievably Broken until All Ancillary Issues Are Resolved.

In Schiffer v Schiffer, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4790060 (N.Y.Sup.) plaintiff husband moved for an order directing that summary judgment be granted in his favor of divorce under Domestic Relations Law 170 (7). The defendant wife opposed the application and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The parties were married in Massachusetts on March 25, 1990 and had three unemancipated children of the marriage. On November 29, 2010, Mr. Schiffer commenced the action for divorce, claiming irretrievable breakdown of the marriage for a period of more than six months prior to the commencement of the action. On December 21, 2010, Mrs. Schiffer served her verified answer, contesting these allegations, specifically claiming that Mr. Schiffer's actions belied his claims that the marriage was irretrievably broken. The Supreme Court observed that Domestic Relations Law § 170 [7] allows parties to seek a judgment of divorce when "the relationship between the husband and wife has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months, provided that one party has so stated under oath" also provides that "no judgment of divorce shall be granted under this subdivision unless and until the economic issues of equitable distribution of marital property, the
payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of child support, the payment of counsel and experts' fees and expenses as well as the custody and visitation with the infant children of the marriage have been resolved by the parties, or determined by the court and incorporated into this judgment of divorce".
The Supreme Court agreed with the wife’s argument that the husband was not entitled to summary judgment since no judgment of divorce can be made unless and until the economic and custodial issues are determined or resolved by the parties. The statute clearly states that a judgment may only be granted after economic and custodial issues were resolved. In this case, all of the conditions of the statute had not been met since the economic and custodial issues were yet to be addressed. Mr. Schiffer had failed to meet his prima facie burden, and his motion for summary judgment was denied.
Mrs. Schiffer's motion for summary judgment was also denied, but for a different reason. Supreme Court observed that in Strack v. Strack (31 Misc.3d 258 [Sup Ct, Essex County 2011] ), Justice Muller held that the "determination of whether a breakdown of a marriage is irretrievable is a question to be determined by the finder of fact." This holding demonstrably agreed with fundamental concepts of due process and comported with similar interpretations of no-fault statutes from our sister states. Since the sole means of procuring a divorce in New York is by judicial process (N.Y. Const, art I, s 9), precluding a party from contesting a ground for divorce "must be regarded as the equivalent of denying [him or her] an opportunity to be heard ...and in the absence of a sufficient countervailing justification for the State's action, a denial of due process". A contrary finding would merely reduce the court to a rubber stamp whenever presented with an action for divorce under Domestic Relations Law 170 (7). While Mrs. Schiffer had established that the ancillary issues were not resolved and that her marriage to Mr. Schiffer had not broken down irretrievably, Mr. Schiffer raised a triable issue of fact that the marriage was irretrievably broken for at least six months. The proof bared by the parties sufficed to establish a true issue of fact as to whether this marriage was irretrievably broken, which the finder of fact would undoubtedly resolve after the other issues were resolved.

A Court May Not Delegate to a Parenting Coordinator the Authority to Resolve Issues Affecting the Best Interests of the Children

In Silbowitz v Silbowitz, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4599852 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court which, in effect, granted the defendant former husband's motion to appoint a parenting coordinator to assist the parties in implementing the terms of their existing child custody and visitation arrangement provided for in the parties' stipulation dated October 22, 2007. It observed that although a court may properly appoint a parenting coordinator to mediate between parties and oversee the implementation of their court-ordered parenting plan a court may not delegate to a parenting coordinator the authority to resolve issues affecting the best interests of the children. Here, despite the expansive scope of the issues entrusted to the parenting coordinator by the Supreme Court's order, his power was properly limited to implementing the terms of the existing child custody and visitation arrangement provided for in the parties' stipulation dated October 22, 2007, subject to the Supreme Court's oversight. Although the parenting coordinator was empowered to issue a written decision resolving a conflict where he was unable to broker an agreement between the parties, the Supreme Court's order also provided that the parties may seek to have the parenting coordinator's decision so-ordered by the Supreme Court and that they "retain their right to return to Court and seek a modification of their parenting plan at any time." Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly limited the role of the parenting coordinator and properly provided that his resolutions remained subject to court oversight.
The plaintiff also contended that the order insufficiently protected the confidential and privileged information of the parties and the children because it required the parties to execute authorizations and releases allowing the parenting coordinator to obtain information which was otherwise confidential or privileged. However, the order required that the parenting coordinator maintain the confidentiality of the information and when read as a whole, clearly limited his authority to request authorizations or releases and use information only in furtherance of his duty to mediate between the parties in the implementation of their parenting plan. Accordingly, no further limitation was necessary.

Supreme Court Properly Declined to Imply a Term Which the Parties Did Not Insert into Their Stipulation, for the Purpose of Determining the Contempt Motion. Court Has Discretion to Decide If it Will Consider New Argument in Reply Papers.

In Penavic v Penavic, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4600442 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the the plaintiff moved, pursuant to Judiciary Law 756 to hold the defendant in civil contempt. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Divison affirmed. It held that to prevail on a motion to punish a party for civil contempt, the movant must demonstrate that the party charged with contempt willfully violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of a court's order, with knowledge of that order's terms, thereby prejudicing the movant's rights. Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her motion to hold the defendant in contempt for failing to remove her name from a home equity line of credit ( HELOC) or closing it. While the plaintiff was aware of the HELOC at the time that she executed the stipulation, no provision was included in the stipulation requiring that her name be removed from it or that it be closed, even though the defendant was precluded from continuing to use the HELOC pursuant to the provision which prohibited him from incurring additional debt upon the plaintiff's credit. Since the terms of the stipulation with respect to whether the HELOC had to be closed were unambiguous, the Supreme Court properly declined to imply a term which the parties did not insert into the stipulation, for the purpose of determining the contempt motion. The plaintiff raised, for the first time in her reply papers, the argument that the defendant was also in contempt of the judgment by increasing the balance of the HELOC from $25,000, the amount of the balance at the time that the parties executed the stipulation, to $750,000, which he disclosed in his affidavit opposing the plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division held that it was within the Supreme Court's discretion to decide if it would consider this new argument. Inasmuch as the plaintiff did not address this provision in her motion papers and relied solely upon the provisions concerning the acknowledgment that the bills or accounts for the former marital residence were solely in the husband's individual name as the basis for her motion, Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion to disregard that argument in connection with the motion before it (citing Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dawkins, 52 AD3d 826, 827).
Authors Note: In Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dawkins, the Appellate Division said: “The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant, not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments or new grounds for the requested relief (see Matter of Harleysville Ins. Co. v Rosario, 17 AD3d 677 [2005]; Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658 [1999]). Further, Dawkins was not afforded an opportunity to address the new argument (see Matter of Harleysville Ins. Co. v Rosario, 17 AD3d 677 [2005]; Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658 [1999]).”

Court May Not Order a Parent Undergo Counseling or Treatment as a Condition of Future Visitation or Re-application for Visitation Rights but May Direct a Party to Submit to a Mental Health Evaluation for Use in Any Future Determination of Visitation.

In Matter of Smith ex rel Hunter v Dawn F.B., --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4600469 (2d Dept 2011) Family Court granted the petition of the attorney for the child alleging that the mother violated an order of custody and visitation, prohibited her from having any contact with her son, directed that she submit to a mental health evaluation, directed her to follow treatment recommendations resulting from that evaluation,
and conditioned her application for resumption of visitation upon her compliance with treatment, including medication, recommended by a mental health professional.
The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the provision conditioning the mother's application for resumption of visitation upon her compliance with treatment, including medication, recommended by a mental health professional. It found that Family Court's determination that it was in the child's best interest to suspend supervised visitation and prohibit all contact with the mother had a sound and substantial basis in the record. The mother, by her own admission, violated the express terms of the Family Court's previous order, which only permitted visitation supervised by designated individuals, by having unsupervised contact with the child at two separate little league baseball games. Moreover, the mother contributed to certain events at a recent therapeutic visit which adversely affected the child and undermined the progress of the therapeutic visitation.
The Appellate Division pointed out that a court may not order that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future visitation or re-application for visitation rights, but may only direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of visitation. Here, the Family Court improperly conditioned the mother's application for resumption of visitation upon her compliance with treatment, including medication, recommended by a mental health professional. However, the Family Court properly directed the mother to submit to a mental health evaluation for use in any future determination of visitation.

Family Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Article 8 Proceeding Where There Is No Intimate Relationship Between Parties

In Matter of Riedel v Vasquez, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4600481 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Family Court which, without a hearing, granted Respondents motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On August 10, 2010, the petitioner commenced an Article 8 proceeding seeking an order of protection against Milagros Carranza Vasquez (respondent), who was the estranged wife of the petitioner's live-in boyfriend. The petitioner had two children with the boyfriend, and the respondent had one child with him. The petitioner alleged that she and the respondent, who did not reside together, had an "intimate relationship" within the meaning of Family Court Act 812(1). The Family Court, without a hearing, dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Appellate Division affirmed. It pointed out that the Family Court is a court of limited subject matter jurisdiction, and "cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute" (Matter of Johna M.S. v. Russell E.S., 10 N.Y.3d 364). Pursuant to Family Court Act 812(1), the Family Court's jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain prescribed acts that occur "between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household". Members of the same family or household include, among others, "persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time" (Family Ct Act 812[1])(e). Expressly excluded from the ambit of "intimate relationship," are "casual acquaintance[s]" and "ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts". Beyond those delineated exclusions, what qualifies as an "intimate relationship" within the meaning of Family Court Act 812(1)(e) is determined on a case-by-case basis. Relevant factors include the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship. Here, the parties had no direct relationship and were only connected through a third party, who was the biological father of the parties' respective children. The parties never resided together and did not take care of each other's children. The respondent's contact with the petitioner and/or her children had been minimal. Given these undisputed facts, no hearing was required, as the Family Court possessed sufficient information to determine that the parties were not and never had been in an "intimate relationship" as defined by Family Court Act s 812(1)(e).

Family Court Lacked Exclusive, Continuing Jurisdiction to Modify Custody Order Where Neither the Child Nor the Father Maintained a Significant Connection with New York, and Substantial Evidence Regarding the Child's Present and Future Welfare Was No Longer Available in this State.

In Knight v Morgan, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4600549 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the
the Family Court issued an order of custody on consent, on August 24, 2009, in connection with the father's petition seeking joint custody of the subject child with the mother, awarding joint legal custody to both parents, with primary residential custody to the father. Accordingly, the child, who was born in 2000, and had resided with his mother in New York since his birth, moved to California in September 2009 to live with his father. After moving to California with the father, the child was diagnosed by a psychologist in California with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and, possibly, a bipolar disorder. The child received treatment from healthcare providers in California, and was not permitted to travel until his condition was stabilized. The child had not returned to New York since moving to California. In December 2009 the mother filed a cross petition in the Family Court, to modify the prior order of custody so as to award her sole custody of the child, in which she alleged that the father had falsely accused her of abusing the child. In January 2010 the father separately cross-petitioned to modify the prior custody order so as to award him sole custody of the child. Subsequently, in May 2010, while both cross petitions were pending, the father moved, inter alia, to dismiss the mother's cross petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After a hearing on the issue of jurisdiction, the Family Court granted that branch of the father's motion which was to dismiss the mother's cross petition on that ground. The Family Court did not address the father's separate cross petition.
The Appellate Division reversed. It held that the Family Court correctly determined that it lacked exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 76-a(1), since neither the child nor the father maintained a significant connection with New York, and substantial evidence regarding the child's present and future welfare was no longer available in this State (Domestic Relations Law 76-a[1][a]). However, the Family Court had jurisdiction to hear the mother's cross petition for modification pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 76-a(2) since it would have had jurisdiction for an initial child custody determination under Domestic Relations Law 76(1)(a). New York was the child's "home state" within the six months immediately preceding the commencement of this proceeding, and the mother continued to reside in this State. The matter was be remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings on the cross petitions.

New York Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where it Is Not State in Which Child Lived for at Least Six Consecutive Months Before Commencement of Custody Proceeding

In Jablonsky-Urso v Urso, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4600550 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division held that Family Court properly granted the father's motion to dismiss the mother’s petition for custody of the parties' son for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Domestic Relations Law 75-a (7) defines a child's home state as "the state in which a child lived with a parent ... for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding". Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, "[h]ome state jurisdiction is paramount and whether to accept jurisdiction is a home state prerogative" (Matter of Navarrete v. Wyatt, 52 A.D.3d at 836, 861 N.Y.S.2d 393). Here, the Family Court properly determined that New York was not the child's home state and, therefore, that New York did not have jurisdiction over this custody dispute (see Domestic Relations Law 76). However, it held that the Family Court erred in refusing to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction over the family offense petition (see Domestic Relations Law 76-c) and in summarily dismissing the family offense petition upon its finding that the allegations contained in the mother's family offense petition were insufficient to sustain a family offense. The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court and the allegations asserted in a petition seeking the issuance of an order of protection must be supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The Family Court improperly determined that the mother failed to demonstrate that the father possessed the intent required to sustain any of the family offenses alleged in the petition, as it did so without the benefit of a hearing. Based on the foregoing, that branch of the father's motion which was to dismiss the family offense petition had to be denied and the matter remitted to the Family Court, for a fact-finding hearing and a determination of the family offense petition with respect to the allegations contained therein.

Important New Decisions - October 3, 2011

2011-10-04T08:43:00.000-04:00

First Department Establishes Rules Related to Obligation of Nonparty to Produce Electronically Stored Information Deleted Through Normal Business Operations

In Tener v Cremer, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4389170 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.) the First Department addressed the obligation of a nonparty to produce electronically stored information (ESI) deleted through normal business operations. The action underlying this discovery dispute concerned a statement about plaintiff that someone posted on a website known as Vitals.com on April 12, 2009. Plaintiff claimed this statement defamed her. Plaintiff claimed that through discovery she managed to trace the Internet protocol (IP) address of the computer from which the allegedly defamatory post originated "to a computer in the custody and control of New York University." This computer had accessed the Internet through a portal located at Bellevue Medical Center and registered to nonparty New York University Langone Medical Center. According to NYU's Chief Information Security Officer, NYU had installed the Internet portal at Bellevue for the convenience of its residents who trainedd there. The portal is a network address translation (NAT) portal that is essentially a switchboard through which a person can access the Internet. While only NYU personnel with proper security codes can gain access to NYU's computer system and medical records, anyone using a computer plugged into an ethernet outlet at Bellevue can access other web sites through the NYU portal. On April 30, 2010, plaintiff served a subpoena on NYU seeking the identity of all persons who accessed the Internet on April 12, 2009, via the IP address plaintiff previously identified. With the subpoena, plaintiff served a preservation letter advising NYU that the identity of the person who posted the remarks was at issue and that NYU should halt any normal business practices that would destroy that information. When NYU did not produce the information, plaintiff moved for contempt. In opposition to plaintiff's contempt motion, NYU's Chief Information Security Officer stated that "[c]omputers that simply access the web through NYU's portal appear as a text file listing that is automatically written over every 30 days. NYU does not possess the technological capability or software, if such exists, to retrieve a text file created more than a year ago and 'written over' at least 12 times." Plaintiff, in reply, submitted an affidavit from a forensic computer expert opining that NYU could still access the information using software designed to retrieve deleted information. The expert stated that "the term 'written over' is deceptive" because what really occurs is that " 'old' information or data is typically allocated to 'free space' within the system." Plaintiff's expert suggested using "X-Rays Forensic" or "Sleuth Kit" to retrieve the information from unallocated space.
Supreme Court denied the contempt motion in part because it found that NYU did not have the ability to produce the materials plaintiff demanded and that "this allegation is unrefuted as a reply affidavit contradicting such allegation has not been supplied." The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court was incorrect. In its papers in opposition to the motion, NYU offered no evidence that it made any effort at all to access the data, apparently because it believed it could not, as a nonparty, be required to install forensic software on its system. However, the cases that NYU cites to support its assertion that it need not install forensic software were outdated. The most recent was from 1993, nearly 20 years ago (see Carrick Realty Corp. v. Flores, 157 Misc.2d 868, 598 N.Y.S.2d 903 (Civ Ct, New York County 1993). Thus, there were several unanswered questions regarding NYU's ability to produce the requested documents.
The Appellate Division held that the party moving for civil contempt arising out of noncompliance with a subpoena duces tecum bears the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the subpoena has been violated and that "the party from whom the documents were sought had the ability to produce them" (Yalkowsky v. Yalkowsky, 93 A.D.2d 834, 835 [1983]; see also Gray v. Giarrizzo, 47 A.D.3d 765, 766 [2008] ). In this day and age the discovery of ESI is commonplace. Although the CPLR is silent on the topic, the Uniform Rules of the Trial Courts and several courts have addressed the discovery of ESI and have provided working guidelines that are useful to judges and practitioners. The Commercial Division for Supreme Court, Nassau County publishes in depth guidelines for the discovery of ESI (the Nassau Guidelines). While aimed at parties, the Nassau Guidelines are appropriate in cases, such as this, where a nonparty's data is at issue. ESI is difficult to destroy permanently. Deletion usually only makes the data more difficult to access. Based on the specific facts of this case, the Court found that the Nassau Guidelines provided a practical approach. To exempt inaccessible data presumptively from discovery might encourage quick deletion as a matter of corporate policy, well before the spectre of litigation is on the horizon and the duty to preserve it attaches. A cost/benefit analysis, as the Nassau Guidelines provide, does not encourage data destruction because discovery could take place regardless. Plaintiff had variously described the information it seeks as stored in a "cache" file, as "unallocated" data or somewhere in backup data. Data from these sources is difficult to access. But, plaintiff's only chance to confirm the identity of the person who allegedly defamed her may lie with NYU. Thus, plaintiff thus demonstrated "good cause"necessitating a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether the needs of the case warrant retrieval of the data.
As the record was insufficient to permit the court to undertake a cost/benefit analysis it remanded to Supreme Court for a hearing to determine at least: (1) whether the identifying information was written over, as NYU maintained, or whether it is somewhere else, such as in unallocated space as a text file; (2) whether the retrieval software plaintiff suggested can actually obtain the data; (3) whether the data will identify actual persons who used the internet on April 12, 2009 via the IP address plaintiff identified; (4) which of those persons accessed Vitals.com and (5) a budget for the cost of the data retrieval, including line item(s) correlating the cost to NYU for the disruption. It observed that some of these questions (particularly [1] and [2] ) may involve credibility determinations. Until the court has this minimum information, it cannot assess "the burden and expense of recovering and producing the ESI and the relative need for the data" (Nassau Guidelines) and concomitantly whether the data is so "inaccessible" that NYU does not have the ability to comply with the subpoena. That NYU is a nonparty should also figure into the equation. In the event the data is retrievable without undue burden or cost, the court should give NYU a reasonable time to comply with the subpoena.

Family Court Finds Irrebuttable Presumption of Unfitness in SSL 378-a(2)(e)(1) and 378-a(2)(h) Violate Due Process Clauses of the New York State and United States Constitutions

In the Matter of the Adoption of Abel,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4436127 (N.Y.Fam.Ct.), Cheryl and Derrick Adamson filed a petition to adopt Abel. Abel was born on August 9, 2004. Since September 22, 2004 when Abel was discharged from the hospital, on the basis of a petition that had been filed alleging that his biological mother had neglected him, Abel resided in the home of his maternal cousin, Cheryl Adamson, and her husband, Derrick Adamson. On April 20, 2009, the court terminated Abel's biological mother's parental rights.. The evidence submitted provided incontrovertible support for the proposition that it was in Abel's best interest to be adopted by the Adamsons and clearly militated in favor of this court approving the Adamsons' petition to adopt Abel. Mr. Adamson's criminal history, however, created an issue as to whether there existed a statutory bar to such approval. Mr. Adamson had a 1987 Washington D.C. conviction for simple assault and a 1992 Kings County (New York State) conviction for Robbery in the Third Degree. On November 24, 2009, pursuant to Social Services Law 378-a(2)(h), New York Foundling conducted a safety assessment of the conditions of the Adamson household. Based on the remoteness in time of his criminal convictions and the fact that in the years since the 1992 robbery conviction, Mr. Adamson had reformed his behavior and has led a productive life, the safety assessment reported that Mr. Adamson did not pose a safety concern to Abel. The assessment concluded that because "Mr. Adamson has been the sole father figure in Abel's life, [New York Foundling] strongly believes that it is in the best interest of the child to be adopted by Mr. and Mrs. Adamson."
In order to gain further understanding of the facts underlying Mr. Adamson's 1992 robbery conviction, the court obtained the criminal court complaint and a transcript of Mr. Adamson's guilty plea. The criminal complaint alleged that on November 27, 1991, in Kings County, Mr. Adamson hit the victim with an unknown blunt object about his head and face and took a bag containing money that the victim had been carrying.The blows allegedly knocked out the victim's front teeth, caused his nose to bleed, and resulted in his sustaining a separated shoulder. On February 3, 1992, having been promised a sentence of one and one-third to four years imprisonment, Mr. Adamson pled guilty to one count of Robbery in the Third Degree and admitted that, on November 27, 1991, when the owner of a store came out [of the store], he hit him, caused him to fall, took his bag containing money, and fled. The Family Court observed that prior to the 2008 amendment of SSL 378-a(2)(e), the court would have found that Mr. Adamson's 1992 robbery conviction did not automatically disqualify him from adopting Abel because denial of Mr. and Mrs. Adamson's petition to adopt would have created an unreasonable risk of harm to Abel's mental health and granting said petition would have been in Abel's best interest and would not have placed his safety in jeopardy. However, in 2008, in order to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006, see Public Law 109-248, New York State eliminated the language in SSL 378--a which only presumptively disqualified from becoming foster or adoptive parents those who had been convicted of certain felonies, and by doing so made automatic the disqualification of those prospective foster or adoptive parents who had been convicted of certain felonies. The Court held that Mr. Adamson's conviction in 1992 for Robbery in the Third Degree fell within the category of convictions which would automatically disqualify him from adopting Abel. SSL 378-a(2)(e)(1)(A) reads, in pertinent part, "an application for certification or approval of a prospective foster parent or prospective adoptive parent shall be denied where a criminal history record of the prospective foster parent or prospective adoptive parent reveals a conviction for: (A) a felony conviction at any time involving: (i) child abuse or neglect; (ii) spousal abuse; (iii) a crime against a child, including child pornography; or (iv) a crime involving violence, including rape, sexual assault, or homicide, other than a crime involving physical assault or battery. See also 18 NYCRR 421.27(d)(1); 42 USCA 671(a)(20)(A)(I); 45 C.F.R. 1356.30(b)(4). Since assault was specifically excluded from the above-cited provision and since Mr. Adamson's assault conviction was both a misdemeanor and occurred over five years ago, there was no doubt that, unlike the robbery conviction, the assault conviction fell within the category of convictions for which the court had discretion to approve or deny the petition to adopt. See SSL 378-a(2)(e)(3(A). Because robbery was not specifically mentioned in this provision, the court, therefore, found that Mr. Adamson's 1992 robbery conviction constituted a "crime involving violence. The fact that robbery is not specifically included in Social Services Law 378-a(2)(e)(1)(A)(iv) is not dispositive. Although this provision specifically includes rape, sexual assault and homicide and specifically excludes assault as crimes involving violence, there is nothing in either the legislative history of this provision or the state or federal regulations promulgated thereunder that would indicate that the listed crimes are exhaustive, and not merely illustrative, of crimes involving violence.
It was beyond cavil that Mr. Adamson had rehabilitated himself and that removal of Abel from this home would have a devastating impact upon Abel. Under the circumstances of this case, it was clear that to follow the strict mandate of the statute and deny Mr. and Mrs. Adamson's petition to adopt Abel and to remove Abel from the home of his maternal cousin and her husband-the only home he has ever known-based solely upon Mr. Adamson's 1992 robbery conviction, would deprive both Abel and the Adamsons of their due process right to an individualized determination of whether this adoption is in Abel's best interest. That right, to a case-specific determination, was firmly established almost forty years ago in Stanley v. Illinois, 605 U.S. 645(1972) when the United States Supreme Court struck down as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment, Illinois' irrebuttable statutory presumption that all unmarried fathers are unqualified to raise their children. The Court held that a hearing was required by the due process clause, upon the death of the mother and prior to the removal of the children, to determine whether the father was fit to raise the children. In so ruling, the Court opined, "procedure by [irrebuttable] presumption is always cheaper and easier than individualized determination. But when ... the procedure forecloses the determinative issues of competence and care, when it explicitly disdains present realities in deference to fast formalities, it needlessly risks running roughshod over the important interests of both parent and child ... [and] therefore cannot stand." Based upon the due process clauses of the New York State and United States Constitutions, this court found that SSL 378-a(2)(e)(1) and 378-a(2)(h), as applied to the facts of this matter, violated Mr. and Mrs. Adamson's and Abel's right to a determination, based on the totality of the circumstances, as to whether the adoption of Abel by the Adamsons is in Abel's best interest. The court examined the totality of the circumstances presented and notwithstanding Mr. Adamson's criminal past, held that it was in Abel's best interest to be adopted by Mr. and Mrs. Adamson and granted the petition.

Method of Service Provided for in Order to Show Cause Is Jurisdictional

In Matter of Sharma v New, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4389744 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), in March 2010 the mother filed a petition and order to show cause to modify the overnight visitation provisions contained in an order dated January 14, 2010, alleging that the father violated that order by taking the subject child "to a different hotel than the one ... which he informed [the social worker] he would be using." In an order dated July 9, 2010, the Family Court, inter alia, granted the mother's petition so as to suspend the father's overnight visitation. The Appellate Division reversed. It observed that the method of service provided for in an order to show cause is jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly complied with. Moreover, where the court orders service by a particular date, all components of service must be accomplished by that date. Here, the record did not contain any evidence establishing that the father was properly or timely served in compliance with the provisions of the order to show cause. Moreover, contrary to the contention of the attorney for the child, the father asserted the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in his answer and did not waive the defense (see CPLR 3211[e]). Since personal jurisdiction was not obtained, the Family Court should have dismissed the proceeding.

Father Did Not Implicitly Consent to Referee by Merely Participating in Custody Proceeding. Referee Had No Jurisdiction.

In Gale v Gale, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4090031 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Divison reversed on the law and remitted for a new hearing, an order of the Family Court which, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition to modify the custody provisions of a judgment of divorce so as to award her sole custody of the parties' children, and denied the fathers petitions for sole custody of the children. It pointed out that a referee derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311), which can be made only upon the consent of the parties, except in limited circumstances not applicable here. It found that the parties did not stipulate to a reference in the manner prescribed by CPLR 2104. In any event, there was no indication that there was an order of reference designating the referee who heard and determined the petitions at issue here. It observed that that contrary to the mother's contention, the father did not implicitly consent to the reference merely by participating in the proceeding without expressing his desire to have the matter tried before a judge (see McCormack v. McCormack, 174 A.D.2d at 613). The Court held that “...to the extent that certain dicta in Chalu v. Tov-Le Realty Corp. (220 A.D.2d 552, 553) may suggest a different conclusion, it is not to be followed.” Furthermore, a stipulation consenting to a reference to a specified referee, executed by the parties in connection with the father's previous petition to modify the visitation schedule, expired upon completion of that matter and did not remain in effect for this matter. Accordingly, the referee had no jurisdiction to consider the father's petitions related to custody and visitation and the mother's petition to modify custody, and the referee's order determining those petitions had to be reversed.

Important New Decisions - September 23, 2011

2011-09-23T08:21:00.000-04:00

Policy of Broad Pretrial Disclosure Regarding Corporate Interests

In Jaffe v Jaffe, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4089440 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.) defendant served 37 nonparty subpoenas on the business office maintained by plaintiff's father. Each subpoena was addressed to a different entity closely held by, or affiliated with, plaintiff's family, which had many real estate holdings. Plaintiff acknowledged that, before the marriage, she had minority interests in many of the entities and that during the marriage she transferred the interests in those companies to a single holding company in exchange for a 25% interest in the holding company. Unlike two of her siblings, plaintiff was given no current or future managerial authority in the holding company. Defendant also addressed subpoenas to SC Management, the company that managed the real estate holdings of the various LLC's. Plaintiff claimed to have no interest in SC Management or six other entities that received subpoenas. In addition to the entities affiliated with plaintiff's family, defendant served a subpoena on Bank of New York Mellon, seeking documents related to accounts maintained there by all of the entities in which plaintiff held an interest, as well as SC Management and the six other entities in which plaintiff denied having any interest. The subpoenas addressed to the entities in which plaintiff had transferred her interest to the holding company differed from each other in some respects, but they uniformally sought financial statements; tax returns; detailed fixed asset registers and depreciation schedules for all assets held; building permits filed between 1996 and 2000; rent rolls identifying all tenants, their apartment numbers, their leases, the square footage of their apartment, and a calculation of their rent per square foot; documents reflecting "in kind" payments or barter transactions with any entity owned by the Hakim Organization, or with any employee, partner or shareholder of such entity; board meeting or other entity meeting minutes; business plans and projections; 1099's with copies of cancelled checks; ownership, operating, management, or subscription agreements; agreements of understanding signed by plaintiff; ownership schedules and stock transfer ledgers, including copies of front and back of all shares issued; copies of credit applications made to a bank or to other creditors; and outside accountants' working paper files and business evaluations or real estate appraisals conducted during the marriage.
Plaintiff moved to quash the subpoenas. She argued that the subpoenas were duplicative of discovery demands defendant had served on her directly (to which she also objected), and that they were intended solely to harass her parents. Plaintiff asserted, the subpoenas were served on the eve of Rosh Hashanah and immediately after defendant threatened to establish that plaintiff's parents were tax evaders. She further contended that, to the extent she had interests in the entities to which the subpoenas were addressed, it was separate property and had no bearing on the distribution of the parties' marital assets. She claimed to have no active role in the companies that would have caused any appreciation in their value to become marital property. In opposition to the motion, defendant argued that the documents and information sought by the subpoenas were necessary to determine whether a portion of plaintiff's family assets is marital property and because the documents bear on maintenance and child support. Pointing to documents he had already discovered during the litigation, defendant submitted that "[m]onies flow[ed] freely" among the subpoenaed entities and that plaintiff was active in the management and development of her family's real estate holdings. Defendant further asserted that the subpoenaed entities regularly made loans to various management companies controlled by the family, particularly SC Management, and used the management companies to pay for family members' personal expenses. Defendant stated that the discovery he sought was relevant to the issue whether plaintiff's actions caused appreciation to the separate property which should then be included in the marital estate. He also argued that, even if plaintiff's interests in the entities were non-marital, they were still relevant under Domestic Relations Law s 236(5)(d)(9), which requires the court, in determining equitable distribution, to consider "the probable future financial circumstances of each party ." The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It held that nonparty discovery was appropriate as to those entities in which plaintiff conceded having interest. However, it quashed the subpoenas for all companies in which plaintiff claimed to have no ownership interest, except for SC Management. The court found that there was evidence, such as checks payable to plaintiff, that "raise[d] the possibility" that plaintiff received compensation for work she performed for that company. The court did not expressly address the subpoena served on Bank of New York.
The Appellate Division observed that in a divorce action, "[b]road pretrial disclosure which enables both spouses to obtain necessary information regarding the value and nature of the marital assets is critical if the trial court is to properly distribute the marital assets" (Kaye v. Kaye, 102 A.D.2d 682, 686 [1984] ). In Kaye, the court denied the husband's motion for a protective order preventing discovery into four closely held family corporations in which he held minority interests, observing, "[I]t has been held that both parties in a matrimonial action governed by the Equitable Distribution Law are now entitled to: a searching exploration of each other's assets and dealings at the time of and during the marriage, so as to delineate the extent of marital property, distinguish it from separate property, uncover hidden assets of marital property, discover possible waste of marital property, and in general gain any information which may bear on the issue of equitable distribution, as well as maintenance and child support. The entire financial history of the marriage must be open for inspection by both parties". Pursuant to this rule of liberal discovery in matrimonial litigation, defendant was entitled to records of the entities in which plaintiff had an interest, so that he may determine whether her interests have a bearing on the distribution of the marital estate as well as support obligations. However, it found that find that defendant had failed to establish that plaintiff had any interest in SC management, so the subpoena served on that entity should have been quashed. Further, to the extent the subpoena served on Bank of New York Mellon sought records related to El-Kam Realty, Aval Company, Old Salem Farm Acquisition Corporation and Affiliates, Enterprise Products Partners, LP Nantucket Campfire, LLC, and Bedford Entities, the bank need not comply. Defendant also failed to demonstrate any affiliation between plaintiff and those entities. The bank was required, however, to divulge information related to the companies in which plaintiff had conceded having an interest. While the entities were not immune from discovery in this action, the Appellae Division held that the subpoenas were overbroad in many respects. For example, the subpoenas included a demand to provide the names and addresses of all commercial and residential tenants, with copies of every lease, and all building permits filed for any building, including construction and renovations for every building plaintiff's family owned, over a 15-year period of time. This information appeared to be of dubious relevance. Accordingly, it remitted the matter and held that the motion court must reconsider plaintiff's motion to determine whether the particular demands annexed to the subpoenas were sufficiently tailored to the financial issues in the action, and whether it would be unduly burdensome for the entities to respond.

Father Did Not Implicitly Consent Referee by Merely Participating in Custody Proceeding. Referee Had No Jurisdiction.

In Gale v Gale, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4090031 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Divison reversed on the law and remitted for a new hearing, an order of the Family Court which, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition to modify the custody provisions of a judgment of divorce so as to award her sole custody of the parties' children, and denied the fathers petitions for sole custody of the children. It pointed out that a referee derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311), which can be made only upon the consent of the parties, except in limited circumstances not applicable here. It found that the parties did not stipulate to a reference in the manner prescribed by CPLR 2104. In any event, there was no indication that there was an order of reference designating the referee who heard and determined the petitions at issue here. It observed that that contrary to the mother's contention, the father did not implicitly consent to the reference merely by participating in the proceeding without expressing his desire to have the matter tried before a judge (see McCormack v. McCormack, 174 A.D.2d at 613). The Court held that “...to the extent that certain dicta in Chalu v. Tov-Le Realty Corp. (220 A.D.2d 552, 553) may suggest a different conclusion, it is not to be followed.” Furthermore, a stipulation consenting to a reference to a specified referee, executed by the parties in connection with the father's previous petition to modify the visitation schedule, expired upon completion of that matter and did not remain in effect for this matter. Accordingly, the referee had no jurisdiction to consider the father's petitions related to custody and visitation and the mother's petition to modify custody, and the referee's order determining those petitions had to be reversed.

Mootness Doctrine Explained in Opinion Dismissing Visitation Appeal as Academic

In Matter of Cissee v Graham, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4090037 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the mother, who was Muslim, and the father, who was Roman Catholic, had one child together, a daughter born on March 24, 2001. In an order dated June 30, 2004 Family Court awarded custody of the child to the mother and visitation to the father, with such visitation to occur pursuant to a stipulation signed by the parties. In a separate order, also dated June 30, 2004, made pursuant to the aforementioned stipulation, the Family Court provided, among other things, that the child was "to be exposed to the Catholic traditions and Muslim traditions." In an order dated August 31, 2005, the parties stipulated to the father having additional visitation time in 2005. Subsequently, the mother filed a petition, in effect, to modify the visitation provisions of the aforementioned orders and the father filed a petition to modify the custody order by awarding him custody of the child. During the pendency of those proceedings, the Family Court issued an order dated August 7, 2009, which modified the June 30, 2004, order made upon the parties' stipulation by directing that "either or both parents may enroll the child in religious instruction in their faith." When the parties appeared before the Family Court on March 15, 2010, for a continued hearing on the petitions, the father, through counsel, requested a temporary change in the visitation schedule to allow the child, in May 2010, to attend rehearsal for her first communion, the ceremony for her first communion at the father's Roman Catholic church, and any associated celebrations. Despite the mother's objection, in an order dated March 18, 2010, the Family Court granted the father's application. The Appellate Division dismissed the mothers appeal as academic. It observed that 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 (Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 713). 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. Contrary to the opinion of the dissent, the rights of the parties would not be directly affected by a determination of this appeal because the events associated with the temporary modification of the father's visitation schedule had already occurred, as conceded by the mother in her brief. Accordingly, the appeal was moot and could not properly be decided by the Court unless the exception to the mootness doctrine applied. The exception to the mootness doctrine occurs where the controversy or issue involved is "likely to recur, typically evades review, and raises a substantial and novel question" (Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, 100 N.Y.2d 801, 811). Here, no exception to the mootness doctrine was argued or present, and the courts are prohibited from rendering purely advisory opinions absent an exception to the mootness doctrine. Justice Hall dissented and voted to decide the appeal on the merits.

Proper to Direct Disclosure Pertaining to the Retirement Benefits and Stock Options Obtained from Alleged New Business Acquired after the Marriage And/or from New Employment Entered into after the Marriage.

In Manditch v Manditch, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4090214 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) in an order dated April 15, 2010, the Supreme Court granted defendant's cross motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with discovery demands to the extent of directing the plaintiff to provide disclosure regarding an alleged new business acquired after the marriage. After receiving a request from the defendant's attorney to clarify the scope of the required disclosure and conducting a conference with the attorneys for both parties, the Supreme Court issued an amended order on June 2, 2010. The amended order clarified that the defendant was entitled to disclosure relating to the alleged new business acquired by the plaintiff after the marriage and/or to new employment entered into after the marriage, as well as retirement benefits and stock options arising out of such new business or new employment, since these retirement benefits and stock options could potentially be marital property under the terms of the parties' prenuptial agreement. The plaintiff subsequently moved to vacate so much of the amended order as directed him to disclose information relating to the retirement benefits and stock options obtained by him from the alleged new business and/or from new employment. Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed. It held that Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in issuing an amended order to clarify the scope of disclosure intended by its prior order dated April 15, 2010. Supreme Court properly directed the plaintiff to provide disclosure pertaining to the retirement benefits and stock options obtained by him from the alleged new business acquired after the marriage and/or from new employment entered into after the marriage. Broad pretrial disclosure enabling both spouses to obtain necessary information regarding the value and nature of the martial assets is deemed critical if the trial court is to properly distribute the marital assets. Moreover, the disclosure sought by the defendant was "material and necessary".

Liability for the Payment of Marital Debt May Be Distributed in Accordance with the Equitable Distribution Factors

In DiFiore v DiFiore,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4090241 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division observed that the Supreme Court has broad discretion in allocating marital debt. In addition, "liability for the payment of marital debt[ ] need not be equally apportioned but may be distributed in accordance with the [equitable distribution] factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(5)(d)" (Lewis v. Lewis, 6 AD3d 837, 839-840). It agreed with the husband's contention that the remaining balance of a loan from his father to the parties toward the purchase of an apartment building should be repaid out of the wife's share of the proceeds of the sale of the apartment building in the principal amount of $48,388.99, plus 5% monthly interest from April 1, 2008, to the date of payment. Pursuant to the pendente lite order dated April 2, 2004, the wife was to receive the rental income from the apartment building, and pay the loan from these proceeds. She failed to do so. The prior decision and order of the Court dated June 7, 2011 (DiFiore v DiFiore, 85 AD3d 714), was recalled and vacated.

Dismissal of Counterclaims for Partition and Recoupment Warranted Pursuant to Cplr 3211(a)(4) Because There Was Already an Action Pending Between the Parties That Sought, in Essence, the Same Relief.

In L.L. v B.H.,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 4007741 (N.Y.Sup.) the parties and their son resided together at XXX Ascan Road, Franklin Square, New York. The residence was purchased for $178,000.00 on November 13, 1991, thirty (30) days prior to the parties marriage. Title was in the names of the husband and wife, as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. There appeared to be no mortgages on the residence. The wife moved to dismiss the husbands counterclaims for partition and recoupment. In support of the motion, counsel for the wife alleged, among other things, that because disposition of the marital residence was an issue to be decided in the matrimonial action as part of equitable distribution, actions for partition and recoupment were improper as they sought to divest the court of its right to determine equitable distribution of the assets and obligations of the parties and exclusive occupancy of said residence. Counsel for the wife argued that this matrimonial action is regulated by Domestic Relations Law (DRL) 236(B)(5), and not Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 901 which permits partition, and that partition and recoupment are not cognizable legal theories in the context of a division of property between divorcing parties. In opposition to the motion, counsel for the husband alleged, among other thing, that the counterclaims for partition and recoupment statef legally cognizable causes of action and that the existence of a matrimonial action did not bar the husband from commencing an action for partition and recoupment.
Justice Falanga framed the issue presented as whether the husband was barred from bringing counterclaims for partition and recoupment when a matrimonial action has been commenced, in which equitable distribution of the marital residence is being sought as well as possible exclusive occupancy of same and a division of all other assets and obligations of the parties. He observed that in the case at bar, the parties acquired title to the property before they were married, as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, and their marriage did not transform the joint tenancy into one by the entirety, which could be created only by a conveyance to a husband and a wife. As such, the marital residence was not "marital property" subject to equitable distribution, as the residence constituted separate property of each of the parties acquired prior to the marriage. In Novak v Novak, 135 Misc.2d 909, 516 N.Y.S.2d 878 [Sup. Dutchess Co.1987] ) the court was faced with the same issue. The Novaks acquired a home as joint tenants ten (10) days before their marriage but they cohabited for only 2 1/2 months before the action for divorce was commenced. The court there rejected the wife's argument that the joint tenancy created an undivided one-half interest in each party and that said interests were not subject to equitable distribution. The court found that the property was not subject to equitable distribution because it was acquired prior to the marriage and because there could be little or no passive appreciation due to the briefness of the marriage, The Novak court allowed a claim for partition to stand because substantial improvements had been made to the residence and the equities of the parties had changed with the contributions that each had made to the improvements. The Novak court found that, within the partition action, it was authorized to adjust all the equities arising out of the parties' relationship with respect to the property to be divided and, found that partition gave the court more flexibility to do equity than DRL 236 (B), given the unique circumstances of that case. In contrast, in the case at bar, the parties had been married and had resided in the subject residence for nearly twenty (20) years and raised their son there since he was born. Case law interpretation of DRL 236(B) had evolved since Novak to take into account the appreciation of separate property from the active contributions of the parties to the marriage, as spouse, parent, wage earner or homemaker.
It was the court's view that, in a matrimonial action, Domestic Relations Law 234 gives to the court broad authority to determine issues that arise between the parties with respect to title and possession of property and, when read in conjunction with DRL 236(B), which authorizes the court to distribute marital and separate property and to adjust debits and credits between the parties as equity would find just and proper given the circumstances of the case, each of the parties have sufficient remedies in the instant matrimonial action so that references to separate causes of action for partition and recoupment were duplicative and unwarranted. Neither party would receive any lesser or greater relief from a separate cause of action for partition or recoupment, when all of the relief that may be had in said actions were within the power of the court in the existing statutory scheme (cf., Chen v. Fischer, 6 N.Y.3d 94, 810 N.Y.S.2d 96, 843 N.E.2d 723 [C.A.2005]; Boronow v. Boronow, 71 N.Y.2d 284, 525 N.Y.S.2d 179, 519 N.E.2d 1375 [C.A.1988] ). The matrimonial forum is a convenient forum for transactions between these parties relating to pre-marital and post-marital property claims and form a convenient trial unit for the purposes of this litigation. (see, Chen v. Fischer, supra.) The court was unconvinced that the husband could obtain any relief in a partition or recoupment action that was different from what the court does in every case involving the equitable disposition and possession of property, some of which may be separate, and the distribution of assets and debts. It was the court's view that dismissal of the counterclaims was warranted, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), because there was already an action pending between the parties that sought, in essence, the same relief. The court found as a matter of law, that the partition and recoupment action were unwarranted and that the rights and remedies of the parties could be decided and granted in the matrimonial action. (cf. Boronow v. Boronow, supra.) As partition is an equitable remedy, a 50/50 split of the equity in the residence was not mandated, for the court may partition the property unevenly, in accordance with the contributions of the parties. That is the same exact remedy that is available in the matrimonial action and the court found that the issues raised in the counterclaims were subsumed into the matrimonial action where the court is given statutory powers to do equity. The court found the previous lower court cases holding to the contrary to be unpersuasive under the facts of this case. It was the court's view that, even when a property is acquired prior to the marriage and title is in both names of the parties, the matrimonial court has jurisdiction and authority to prevent unjust enrichment to either party. The wife's motion for an order dismissing the husband's counterclaims for partition and recoupment was granted and the counterclaims were dismissed.

CPLR Amendments of Interest to Matrimonial Attorneys - September 21, 2011

2011-09-21T17:16:00.001-04:00

Laws of 2011, Ch 473 , §1, amended CPLR 306-b, effective January 1, 2012, to provide that service be made within 120 days "after commencement of the action or proceeding." CPLR 306-b formerly required service of the summons and complaint, summons with notice, third-party summons and complaint, petition with notice of petition or order to show cause within 120 days after filing, with appropriate modifications where the statute of limitations is four months or less.

CPLR 306-b now provides:

§ 306-b. Service of the summons and complaint, summons with notice, third-party summons and complaint, or petition with a notice of petition or order to show cause. Service of the summons and complaint, summons with notice, third-party summons and complaint, or petition with a notice of petition or order to show cause shall be made within one hundred twenty days after the commencement of the action or proceeding, provided that in an action or proceeding, except a proceeding commenced under the election law, wherethe applicable statute of limitations is four months or less, service shall be made not later than fifteen days after the date on which the applicable statute of limitations expires. If service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service.

Laws of 2011, Ch 473 , §2, amended CPLR 2101(f), effective January 1, 2012, to increase the time for raising objections to defects in form of a paper. The time in which an objection to a defect in form must be raised has been two days from receipt of the paper objected to. The period of time was amended from "two" to "fifteen" days.

CPLR 2101(f) now provides:

(f) Defects in form; waiver. A defect in the form of a paper, if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, shall be disregarded by the court, and leave to correct shall be freely given. The party on whom a paper is served shall be deemed to have waived objection to any defect in form unless, within fifteen days after the receipt thereof, the party on whom the paper is served returns the paper to the party serving it with a statement of particular objections.

Laws of 2011, Ch 473 , §3, amended CPLR 3025(b), effective January 1, 2012 , to require a party moving to amend its pleadings to attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading to its motion to amend that pleading, clearly showing the proposed changes to the pleading.

CPLR 3025(b) now provides:

(b) Amendments and supplemental pleadings by leave. A party may amend his or her pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties. Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just including the granting of costs and continuances. Any motion to amend or supplement pleadings shall be accompanied by the proposed amended or supplemental pleading clearly showing the changes or additions to be made to the pleading.

Laws of 2011, Ch 473 , §4, amended CPLR 3217(a)(1), effective January 1, 2012, to extend the time period in which, at the outset of a case, a voluntary discontinuance may be obtained without need for a court order or a stipulation of settlement. Formerly, a party alleging a cause of action in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, or petition could only unilaterally discontinue it without court order or stipulation by serving and filing the requisite notice on all parties "at any time before a responsive pleading is served or within twenty days after service of the pleading asserting the claim, whichever is earlier..."CPLR 3217(a)(1). CPLR 3217(a)(1) was amended to permit a voluntary discontinuance without court order or stipulation before the responsive pleading is served or within 20 days after service of the pleading of the claim, whichever is later.

CPLR 3217(a)(1) now provides:

1. by serving upon all parties to the action a notice of discontinuance at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if no responsive pleading is required, within twenty days after service of the leading asserting the claim and filing the notice with proof of service with the clerk of the court; or

Important New Decisions and Legislation- August 31, 2011

2011-08-31T06:26:00.001-04:00

Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) subdivisions (d) (g) and (i) and Family Court Act § 413 (1) subdivisions (d) (g) and (i) amended by Laws of 2011, Ch 436, effective November 15, 2011

In Rose v Moody, 83 NY2d 65 (1993) the Court of Appeals held Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) and Family Court Act § 413 (1) unconstitutional insofar as they imposed an inflexible minimum child support obligation against support obligors whose income would, by virtue of the obligation, fall below the poverty level. The Court of Appeals held that that the irrebuttable presumption mandating that an indigent, non-custodial parent be ordered to pay a minimum of $25 per month in child support contravened the Federal Child Support Enforcement Act Social Security Act, Title IV-D §467(b)(2), as amended, 42 USCA §667(b)(2), thus violating the constitutional principle of Federal preemption. While the effect of the Court's ruling has been to require that support obligors be permitted to rebut the presumption in favor of a minimum obligation of $25 per month, the statutory language had not been conformed accordingly. Additionally, in cases where the basic child support obligation would reduce the non-custodial parent's income to a level below the self-support reserve, but not below the poverty level, both subdivisions provide alternative standards for determining child support, that is, the greater of $50 per month or the difference between the non-custodial parents' income and the self-support reserve. However, both statutes are silent regarding whether separate amounts may also be ordered in such cases for child care, future medical and educational expenses, in accordance with subparagraphs four, five, six and seven of paragraph (c) of both subdivision one of section 413 of the Family Court Act and subdivision (1-b) of section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law. Several cases have, therefore, disallowed the inclusion of any of these expenses as part of the child support order in such circumstances. See Callen v Callen, 287 AD2d 818 ( 3rd Dept 2001); In Re Rhianna R., 256 AD2d 1184 (4th Dept 1998) (citing Matter of Cary)(Mahady) v Megrell, 219 AD2d 334 (3rd Dept 1996), Iv App Dismissed, 88 NY2d 1065 1996); Dunbar v. Dunbar, 233 AD2d 922 ( 4th Dept 1996.) (See NY Legis Memo 436 (2011).

Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) and Family Court Act § 413 (1) were amended by Laws of 2011, Ch 436 to correct these anomalies and to codify the decision in Rose v Moody.

The amendments make the presumption in favor of a minimum order of $25 per month rebuttable by a showing that such an order would be unjust or inappropriate, based upon the ten factors applicable to departures from the child support standards set forth in Domestic Relations Law §240(1-b)(f); Family Court Act 413(1)(f). Family Court and Supreme Court are authorized to order payment of an amount it deems to be just and appropriate. The amendment eliminates the proviso that " in no instance shall the court order child support below $25 per month." The amendment also clarifies that in cases where imposition of the basic child support obligation would reduce the non-custodial parent's income to an amount below the self-support reserve, but not the poverty level, the Court would be authorized, although not required, to direct payments for child care, educational and health care expenses, as part of its child support order.

Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b), subdivisions (d) (g) and (i) were amended accordingly. In addition, subdivision (i) was amended to make technical corrections , including deleting “social services” and replacing it with “the office of temporary and disability assistance”.

Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b), paragraphs (d), (g) and (i) were amended to read as follows:

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c) of this subdivision, where the annual amount of the basic child support obligation would reduce the non-custodial parent's income below the poverty income guidelines amount for a single person as reported by the federal department of health and human services, the basic child support obligation shall be twenty-five dollars per month, provided, however, that if the court finds that such basic child support obligation is unjust or inappropriate, which finding shall be based upon considerations of the factors set forth in paragraph (f) of this subdivision, the court shall order the non-custodial parent to pay such amount of the child support as the court finds just and appropriate. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c) of this subdivision, where the annual amount of the basic child support obligation would reduce the non-custodial parent's income below the self-support reserve but not below the poverty income guidelines amount for a single person as reported by the federal department of health and human services, the basic child support obligation shall be fifty dollars per month or the difference between the non-custodial parent's income and the self-support reserve, whichever is greater, in addition to any amounts that the court may, in its discretion, order in accordance with subparagraphs four, five, six and/or seven of paragraph (c) of this subdivision.

(g) Where the court finds that the non-custodial parent's pro rata share of the basic child support obligation is unjust or inappropriate, the court shall order the non-custodial parent to pay such amount of child support as the court finds just and appropriate, and the court shall set forth, in a written order, the factors it considered; the amount of each party's pro rata share of the basic child support obligation; and the reasons that the court did not order the basic child support obligation. Such written order may not be waived by either party or counsel; provided, however, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not find that the non-custodial parent's pro rata share of such obligation is unjust or inappropriate on the basis that such share exceeds the portion of a public assistance grant which is attributable to a child or children. Where the non-custodial parent's income is less than or equal to the poverty income guidelines amount for a single person as reported by the federal department of health and human services, unpaid child support arrears in excess of five hundred dollars shall not accrue.

(i) Where either or both parties are unrepresented, the court shall not enter an order or judgment other than a temporary order pursuant to section two hundred thirty-seven of this article, that includes a provision for child support unless the unrepresented party or parties have received a copy of the child support standards chart promulgated by the commissioner of the office of temporary and disability assistance pursuant to subdivision two of section one hundred eleven-i of the social services law. Where either party is in receipt of child support enforcement services through the local social services district, the local social services district child support enforcement unit shall advise such party of the amount derived from application of the child support percentage and that such amount serves as a starting point for the determination of the child support award, and shall provide such party with a copy of the child support standards chart. (Laws of 2011, Ch 436, §1, effective November 15, 2011)

Almost identical amendments were made to Family Court Act , § 413 (1), paragraphs (d), (g) and (i). (Laws of 2011, Ch 436, §2, effective November 15, 2011)

Second Department Holds That Counsel Fees May Be Requested under FCA 438 (a) At Any Time until the Appellate Process Has Concluded

In Talty v Talty--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 3715407 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), a support proceeding, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed an order of the Family Court which had vacated a counsel fee award of $11,893.04 and reinstated the award. It observed that Family Court Act § 438(a) provides: "[i]n any proceeding under this article, including proceedings for support of a spouse and children, or for support of children only, or at any hearing to modify or enforce an order entered in that proceeding or a proceeding to modify a decree of divorce, separation, or annulment, including an appeal under article eleven, the court may allow counsel fees at any stage of the proceeding, to the attorney representing the spouse, former spouse or person on behalf of children." It construed the language "[i]n any proceeding under this article" to include "an appeal under article eleven" , and held that the plain meaning of the statute supports the interpretation that a request for an attorney's fee can be made "at any stage of the proceeding," which includes "an appeal under article eleven". In this context, therefore, the "proceeding" does not conclude until the appellate process has concluded. The proceeding is terminated when an appeal has concluded and no more appellate relief is available, or when the time to file an appeal has expired. Applying this interpretation of the statute to the facts of this case, it held that the mother's motion for an award of an additional attorney's fee was timely, as the appellate process had not yet concluded at the time the motion was made. It further held that to the extent that any of its decisions suggested otherwise (citing Matter of McGrath v. Parker, 41 AD3d 852; Matter of Cassieri v. Cassieri, 31 A.D.2d 927, 298 N.Y.S.2d 844), they are no longer to be followed.

“Extraordinary Circumstances Analysis” must Consider "The Cumulative Effect" of All Issues Present in a Given Case and Not View Each Factor in Isolation. Custody Awarded to Non-biological Relative of Child Rather than Father

In Matter of Pettaway v Savage, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 3611215 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), Eric Pettaway was the father of a daughter (born in 1997). In 2003, he and the child's mother, Denise Knight, now deceased, stipulated to joint legal custody of the child with primary physical custody to the mother and visitation to the father. The child resided with the mother and the child's two half siblings until the mother's death in June 2009, at which time the father commenced proceeding No. 1, seeking custody. In response, the attorney for the child moved by order to show cause for an award of sole legal and physical custody to William Savage II, also known as Eric Savage. Savage was not a biological relative of the child; he was the father of the child's older half sister and had fostered a close relationship with the child over the course of several years. Savage then commenced proceeding No. 2, also seeking custody of the child. Family Court found the existence of extraordinary circumstances sufficient to permit the court to intervene in the father's relationship with the child and then, further, that the child's best interests would be served by an award of sole custody to Savage. The father, was granted visitation on alternate weekends and such additional periods of time as the parties and the child may agree. The Appellate Division affirmed. It noted that extraordinary circumstances may not be established "merely by showing that the child has bonded psychologically with the nonparent". The extraordinary circumstances analysis must consider "the cumulative effect" of all issues present in a given case and not view each factor in isolation. In prior cases, extraordinary circumstances have been established based upon the combined effect of factors, including the child's psychological bonding and attachments, the prior disruption of the parent's custody, separation from siblings and potential harm to the child, as well as the parent's neglect or abdication of responsibilities and the child's poor relationship with the parent (see Matter of Banks v. Banks, 285 A.D.2d 686, 687 [2001] ). In Matter of Banks v. Bank, a case in which there were a number of significant similarities to this one, the children--at the time of their father's death--had already developed a bond with his second wife after living with the couple for approximately 30 months. The Appellate Division reversed Family Court's award of custody to the biological mother, citing as extraordinary circumstances the death of the father, the "poor relationship" between the children and the mother, bereavement needs and other special issues affecting one of the children and the mother's recent "withdrawal as a parent". Each and all of those factors were present here; as in Banks, one of the child's parents was deceased, the child had formed a strong psychological bond with a nonparent, the child had special needs in addition to psychological needs resulting from bereavement, and the parent seeking custody withdrew almost completely from the parental role for an extended period before the other parent's death. Here, Family Court found that, prior to the mother's death, the father failed to play any significant role in the child's life, visited inconsistently throughout the child's life, and failed to attend to the child's emotional needs. The court credited a psychologist's testimony and opinion that the father had emotionally abandoned the child by his neglect of her and had demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of her needs. These findings were fully supported by the record. Family Court's conclusion that the father abdicated his parental responsibilities was supported by the testimony of several witnesses that the father frequently missed scheduled visits with the child and often left the child with other adults even when he did pick her up for visits, and by undisputed testimony that the father did not attend the child's school conferences or special education meetings until after the mother's death, did not know her teachers' names and never helped her with homework, although he testified that he knew she needed special assistance. Even while this matter was pending, the father failed to appear for a scheduled meeting with the child's teacher and guidance counselor, for reasons unexplained. Testimony further revealed that the father had failed to provide for the child's basic needs during her time with him--he had not provided her with enough food during past visits, nor did he supply her with essentials such as soap or deodorant. When the child sustained an injury while performing physical work for the father's brother, neither the father nor his brother furnished appropriate medical care. There was further disturbing testimony--which Family Court found to be credible--that the father knew that his brother had "badgered" the child about her desire to live with Savage, and that the brother had threatened the child that his conduct should not be mentioned in court; despite this knowledge, the father did not intervene or seek to protect the child. Family Court also found that the period in which the father had custody of the child after the mother's death "did not go well," noting that during this vulnerable period, the child felt isolated from her other family contacts and had limited interaction with them--at a time when any responsible parent or caretaker should have readily recognized that such support was essential. The court had ample basis for doubting the father's testimony that he would not relocate with the child to New Jersey, where his new wife resided and owned a growing travel business, finding it instead "extremely unlikely" that the father would foster the close relationship between the child and her sister and "the others [who] have become her true family." The court further found that the father lacked credibility regarding his previous conviction for attempted rape in the third degree of a person under 17, and his failure to complete sex offender treatment thereafter.

Error to Allow Wife to Benefit from Her Failure to Comply with Discovery

In Cabral v Cabral, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 3600503 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the parties were married on January 24, 1980, and had three children, born in 1980, 1982, and 1989. During the marriage, the parties purchased the marital residence in Westchester County, as well as a vacation residence in the Dominican Republic. Beginning in 1983, the defendant was employed by Westchester County, in which position she received a salary and accrued pension benefits. In 1986, the plaintiff obtained an insurance license and opened an agency selling insurance policies and providing financial and other services. The plaintiff was incarcerated from 1991 to 1994 upon his conviction of felony drug charges, and his insurance license was revoked. The plaintiff testified at trial that prior to his incarceration, he liquidated a retirement benefit and used the proceeds to provide a source of income to the defendant and the parties' children. The defendant continued operation of the agency during the plaintiff's incarceration, and during that time federal tax liens were levied against the agency. The plaintiff also testified that after he was released from prison, the defendant refused to allow him to return to work at the agency in any capacity. Thereafter, the plaintiff did obtain full-time employment, albeit at an annual salary which was significantly less than what he earned as an insurance broker. In 2001, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce. Due to the defendant's failure to comply with pretrial discovery orders, she was precluded from offering evidence at trial on the issue of equitable distribution. Supreme Court equitably distributed marital property and awarded child support, and the wife appealed. The Appellate Division, 35 A.D.3d 779, 826 N.Y.S.2d 443, reversed and remitted. On remittal, the Supreme Court awarded child support arrears, awarded the husband no share of the wife's pension, directed that he be solely responsible for the federal tax lien assessed on parties' business, and directed him to pay child support. The husband appealed and the Appellate Division reversed insofar as appealed from and remitted. It held that Supreme Court erred in failing to include the defendant's income from the insurance agency in calculating her income or assets, thereby allowing her to benefit from her failure to comply with discovery and shielding her insofar as the income related to equitable distribution. The defendant's income was also improperly omitted in the calculation of child support and in the apportionment of the debt incurred by the parties' insurance agency. It found that Supreme Court should have included the defendant's pension benefits which accrued prior to the commencement date of the action in the equitable distribution of marital property. Finally, under the particular circumstances of this case, and in the absence of any evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff had the ability to earn a salary approaching his previous income, the Supreme Court improperly imputed annual income to him of $85,000 as part of its calculation of child support.

Inquest on Papers to Determine the Amount of Restitution Is Permitted Pursuant to Family Court Act 841(e)

In Polanco v Dilone,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 3557068 (N.Y.Fam.Ct.) Petitioner moved for summary judgment on her petition for an order of protection based on Mr. Dilone's guilty plea in Bronx Criminal Court to assault in the 3rd degree. On December 2, 2010, the court granted the motion, and issued findings of fact and a 5 year order of protection. The court also directed an inquest on papers to determine the amount of restitution. It observed that pursuant to Family Court Act 841(e), restitution is an available remedy in this case. Petitioner submitted an affidavit, dated December 15, 2010, delineating her expenses: Travel by Subway to prosecute this case: $78.50 Destroyed toys, bottle of perfume and bouquet of flowers: $100 Certificate of disposition: $10. There was no evidence that respondent was ordered to pay restitution in the criminal action and thus this order was not duplicative. Respondent failed to file opposition which was due by January 21, 2011. The Family Court observed that under FCA 834, the standard of proof at a dispostional hearing is material and relevant. Petitioner submitted a receipt for the certificate of disposition which established the $10 expense. Petitioner's travel expenses were also sufficiently documented in that her appearances in court were in the court's file and would necessitate trips to meet with her attorney, the detective and District Attorney. Further, petitioner testified to injuries for which medical treatment was documented and thus those travel expenses were supported by the record as well. However, petitioner did not allege in the petition that she suffered property damage. Since petitioner moved for summary judgment based on the criminal proceedings, there was no testimony here about property damage. The criminal disposition was silent as to property damage as well. In addition, there was no documentary evidence for the $100 for destroyed property. Admittedly, $100 was an estimate for items of sentimental value. While the court is authorized to award nominal damages, it cannot award sentimental value. Furlan v. Rayan Phot Works, Inc., 171 Misc. 839 (Mun Ct, Queens County 1939). The court accepted petitioner's credible testimony that the intrinsic value of the toys, perfume, and flowers was $100. Victoria C v. Higinio C., 1 AD3d 173 (1st Dept 2003). However, petitioner was required to first plead and prove property damage before any damages could be awarded. Therefore, petitioner had established damages in the amount of $88.50. The court granted the petition for restitution and directed that petitioner shall have judgment for $88.50 with interest from September 24, 2009. The clerk was directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Important New Decisions - July 27, 2011

2011-07-27T09:12:00.000-04:00

Third Department Holds That While Plaintiff Lacked a Remedy at Law, the Dissolution of a Civil Union Falls Squarely Within the Scope of Supreme Court's Broad Equity Jurisdiction

In Dickerson v Thompson, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2899241 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) Plaintiff and defendant, residents of New York, entered into a civil union in Vermont in April 2003. In November 2007, plaintiff, unable to obtain a dissolution of the civil union in Vermont due to that state's residency requirements commenced an action for equitable and declaratory relief seeking a judgment dissolving the civil union and freeing her of all the rights and responsibilities incident to that union. Upon defendant's
default, plaintiff moved for a judgment granting the requested relief. Supreme Court, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the complaint (73 A.D.3d 52 [2010] [ Dickerson I ] ), holding that the courts of this state may recognize the civil union status of the parties as a matter of comity and that Supreme Court is vested with subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. It did not, however, reach the issue as to what relief, if any, could ultimately be afforded to the parties on the merits. Upon remittal, Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion seeking a declaration relieving the parties from all rights and obligations arising from the civil union, but denied that portion of the motion seeking a dissolution of the union. The Appellate Division modified, disagreeing with Supreme Court's conclusion that, in the absence of any
legislatively created mechanism in New York by which a court could grant the
dissolution of a civil union entered into in another state, it was powerless to grant the requested relief. It held that while plaintiff lacked a remedy at law, the dissolution of a civil union falls squarely within the scope of Supreme Court's broad equity jurisdiction. As it noted in Dickerson I, the N.Y. Constitution vests Supreme Court with "general original jurisdiction in law and equity" (N.Y. Const, art VI, s 7[a] ). " 'The power of equity is as broad as equity and justice require' ". Indeed, "[t]he essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power ... to [mold] each decree to the necessities of the particular case" (State of New York v. Barone, 74 N.Y.2d 332, 336 [1989]. Thus, once a court of equity has obtained jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, as Supreme Court had here, it has the power to dispose of all matters at issue and to grant complete relief in accordance with the equities of the case. In other words, even in the absence of any direct grant of legislative power, Supreme Court has the "inherent authority ... to fashion whatever remedies are required for the resolution of justiciable disputes and the protection of the rights of citizens," tempered only by our Constitution and statutes. It found that the exercise of Supreme Court's equitable powers to grant a dissolution of the civil union was clearly warranted here. Plaintiff was in need of a judicial remedy to dissolve her legal relationship with defendant created by the laws of Vermont. Residency requirements prevent her from obtaining a dissolution of the civil union in Vermont, and the provisions of Domestic Relations Law 170,
which provide for divorce and dissolution of a marriage, were not applicable to this action since the parties did not enter into a marriage in Vermont. Thus, absent Supreme Court's invocation of its equitable power to dissolve the civil union, there would be no court competent to provide plaintiff the requested relief and she would therefore be left without a remedy. A court of equity "withholds its remedies if the result would be unjust, but freely grants them to prevent injustice when the other courts are helpless". Here, the uncontested evidence submitted by plaintiff established that, during the course of the parties' relationship, defendant had subjected her to violent physical abuse on several occasions and was verbally abusive to both her and her autistic son on a daily basis. Defendant also stole from her, resulting in defendant's criminal conviction of grand larceny, and removed the license plates from plaintiff's vehicle to prevent her and her son from escaping defendant's abusive conduct. Furthermore, the parties have lived apart since April 2006 and
plaintiff had alleged facts demonstrating that resumption of the civil union is not probable. Since plaintiff would be entitled to a dissolution of the civil union in Vermont but for that state's residency requirement (see Vt Stat Ann, tit 15, s 551[3], [7]; ss 592, 1206), the Court found that equity would be served by granting her the requested relief and that Supreme Court erred in declining to invoke its equitable powers to do so. Furthermore, notwithstanding Supreme Court's declaration freeing the parties from the rights and obligations flowing from the civil union, the fact remained that, in the absence of a judgment granting a dissolution, plaintiff and defendant continued to be interminably bound as partners to the union. Given this legal status, plaintiff was precluded from entering into another civil union or a marriage in Vermont as well as analogous relationships in several other jurisdictions. Supreme Court's denial of the requested dissolution also barred the parties from enjoying the more limited protections available to domestic partners under certain locals laws of this state, including New York City's Domestic Partnership Law, which forbids parties to a civil union from entering into a domestic partnership with another (see City of N.Y. Administrative Code s 3-241).

Disposition Based Almost Entirely upon Proof That Court Elicited Is Expressly Disapproved. Function of the Judge is to Protect the Record at Trial, Not to Make It.

In Matter of Kyle FF, 926 N.Y.S.2d 196 (3 Dept, 2011) in August 2010, respondent (born in 1995) appeared in Family Court and admitted to committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree. At the dispositional hearing that followed, the parties stipulated to the admission of the predispositional report, which recommended, among other things, that respondent be placed on probation for two years subject to various special conditions. Although the parties asked that Family Court accept that recommendation and indicated that they intended to offer no further proof in this regard, Family Court called as its own witness the author of the report and questioned her extensively regarding respondent's prior admission to the local hospital's mental health unit and a subsequent mental health evaluation conducted by the Northeast Parent & Child Society. In response to this testimony, Family Court then indicated that it would not close the proof until it obtained the corresponding records for respondent's admission/evaluation and stated its intent to issue subpoenas to that effect. Following additional discussion, Family Court agreed to accept the discharge summary from respondent's hospital admission and closed the proof. Thereafter, relying almost exclusively upon proof that it elicited, Family Court ordered that respondent be placed with
the Office of Children and Family Services until August 31, 2011. The Appellate Division held that Family Court improperly assumed a prosecutorial role by eliciting testimonial and documentary evidence at the dispositional hearing. Although respondent did not object when Family Court called the author of the predispositional report as a witness and, further, stipulated to the admission of the discharge summary, thereby rendering this issue unpreserved for review it exercised its discretion and
reversed Family Court's order. The Appellate Division observed that Family Court is vested with the discretion to call witnesses, including the author of the predispositional report (see Family Ct. Act 350.4[2] ), and may assume "a more active role in the presentation of evidence in order to clarify a confusing issue or to avoid misleading the trier of fact" (People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67[2002] ). However, "[t]he overarching principle restraining the court's discretion [in this regard] is that it is the function of the judge to protect the record at trial, not to make it" and the court must take care to avoid assuming "the function or appearance of an advocate" (Matter of Yadiel Roque C., 17 A.D.3d at 1169). Here, even though the parties agreed with the recommendation made by the Probation Department, Family Court called and extensively questioned the author of the predispositional report, secured the production of additional documentary evidence and then, according essentially no weight to the underlying recommendation and the parties' expressed wishes, crafted a disposition based almost entirely upon proof that it elicited-a practice with which this Court previously had expressed its disapproval (see Matter of Keaghn Y., 921 N.Y.S.2d at 739; Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 A.D.3d 1454, 1455 [2010]; Matter of Stampfler v. Snow, 290 A.D.2d 595, 596[2002]). Accordingly, Family Court's order was reversed and, as respondent's placement had not yet expired, this matter was remitted for a new dispositional hearing before a different judge.

Important New Decisions - July 20, 2011

2011-07-20T10:03:00.000-04:00

Costs of After-school Program and Summer Camp Qualify as Child Care Expenses.

In Matter of Scarduzio v Ryan, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2714203 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division observed that the party seeking modification of a support order has the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification. A change in the expenses for the child may constitute such a change in circumstances . It was undisputed that the child care expenses had decreased significantly since the order of support had been issued, due to the child attending school full time. It held that the father should only be required to pay his share of the child care expenses actually incurred by the mother commencing January 7, 2010, the date that the father filed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation . It rejected the father's argument that the costs of the after-school program and summer camp in which the child was enrolled did not qualify as child care expenses. The father offered no evidence to refute the mother's contention that these programs provided care for the child while she was at work. Accordingly, those programs qualified as child care expenses consistent with the purpose of Family Court Act 413(1)(c)(4).

An Evidentiary Ruling, Even When Made in Advance of a Trial on Motion Papers, Is Not Appealable

In Matter of Lyons v Lyons, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2714210 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) The Appellate Divison ruled that the appeal from so much of the order dated August 9, 2010, as denied the motion of Audrey Lyons to preclude the testimony of a court-appointed forensic evaluator at a hearing to be held on the issue of custody and to preclude the use of that evaluator's report at the hearing must be dismissed because it concerned an evidentiary ruling, which, even when made in advance of a hearing or trial on motion papers, is not appealable as of right or by permission.

Order Based upon Reports and Trial Testimony of Psychologists Which Made Reference to Statements about Respondent Attributed to Other Witnesses Who Did Not Testify at Trial, or Was Otherwise Qualified for Admission Pursuant to a Recognized Exception to the Rule Against Hearsay, Is Reversible Hearsay.

In Matter of Anthony WW, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2637279 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) Family Court ultimately terminated respondent's parental rights on the ground that he suffered from a mental illness that prevented him from providing proper care for his children. The Appellate Division reversed. It observed that at trial petitioner presented the testimony and reports of Richard Liotta and Donald Danser, both of whom were licensed psychologists who examined respondent. Respondent contended that both psychologists relied on inadmissible hearsay in preparing their reports and in arriving at their final opinions, and that since Family Court's decision terminating his parental rights was based in large measure on their reports and trial testimony, it must be reversed. Respondent argued that both psychologists, in their reports and in their trial testimony, made reference to statements about respondent attributed to other witnesses who did not testify at trial, none of which was admitted into evidence or was otherwise qualified for admission pursuant to a recognized exception to the rule against hearsay. Petitioner contended that both opinions were properly admitted and were either based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness or qualified as material of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion and were properly admitted at trial. Danser testified that, in forming his opinion, he relied on his interview with respondent, as well as the results of various psychological tests that he performed on him. Danser also reviewed records that petitioner had on file regarding respondent, including case, progress and supervision notes, all of which were compiled during a four-year period beginning in 2003, as well as documents describing mental health treatment that respondent received during this time period. While Danser did not testify that this evidence was commonly relied upon in his profession to perform such an evaluation, Family Court determined that it was proper for him to refer to it, because some of this evidence was contained in the trial testimony given by other witnesses or in records that had been properly admitted into evidence at trial. However, the court did acknowledge that some of the references in Danser's report should not have been admitted and, for that reason, directed that a section of his report, entitled "Review of Records," be stricken because it referred to evidence that had not been admitted at trial. Significantly, Danser was never asked what impact this redacted evidence had on his evaluation of respondent and what effect, if any, it had on his opinion regarding respondent's mental condition. Similar issues existed with Liotta's report and testimony, both of which were admitted into evidence at trial. When he was first retained to perform his evaluation, Liotta was provided with petitioner's complete file on respondent. Later, he was asked to return the file and then, pursuant to a court order, was provided with a limited record to review. Liotta was also directed to limit his review to the records provided and not base his evaluation on respondent's fitness as a parent on statements made by the mother about respondent or on any collateral interviews that he may have conducted with other individuals regarding respondent. However, it was clear from the content of his report, as well as his testimony at trial, that Liotta, in forming his final opinion regarding respondent's fitness as a parent, relied on observations of respondent made by his eldest son's mental health provider as well as on statements made by the mother about respondent. In addition, Liotta's interviews with respondent's caseworker and his current mental heath therapist were referenced in his report and obviously played a role in the opinion that he ultimately offered regarding respondent's mental illness and its impact on his ability to be a parent. Like Danser, Liotta was never asked if this evidence was normally relied on within his profession as appropriate for the performance of such an evaluation and, while some of it was redacted, including any reference to his interview with the mental health therapist, Liotta was never
asked what impact this evidence had in formulating his final opinion as to
respondent's fitness as a parent. As a result, a proper foundation was not laid for the admission of the testimony of either psychologist or their reports. Without this evidence, Family Court's determination that respondent suffered from a mental illness that affected his ability to provide for his children was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. In footnotes the court pointed out that a redacted version of respondent's records from 2005 through 2007 was admitted into evidence at the trial. It also noted that Danser's evaluation focused on respondent's ability to function and contained recommendations for treatment. It was not performed for the specific purpose of determining whether respondent had the ability to provide an acceptable level of care for his children and, for that reason alone, should not have been admitted into evidence (see Social Services Law 384-b).

A Party May Be Held in Contempt for Their Subsequent Violation of an Oral Order or Directive, Issued in the Contemnor's Presence, Placed upon the Record and Transcribed into the Minutes of the Proceeding

In Matter of Lagano v Soule, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2637330 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), Petitioner (mother) and respondent Eric K. Taylor (father) were the biological parents of a son (born in 2002). In May 2005, respondent Linda S. Soule, the child's paternal grandmother, was granted custody of the child, and the mother was awarded specified periods of visitation. The mother commenced proceedings seeking to modify the prior award of custody and hold Soule in contempt for failing to comply with the visitation schedule. A hearing ensued as to the modification petitions in February 2006, at the conclusion of which Family Court granted the mother temporary custody of the child. The mother's attorney was instructed to prepare an order to that effect, which also was to include a directive that Soule produce the child at the next scheduled court appearance. When the matter reconvened in April 2006, Soule, who had relocated with the child out of state, appeared via telephone. Prior to adjourning the hearing due to the absence of the then attorney for the child, Judge Connerton advised Soule--repeatedly and in no uncertain terms--that she was required to produce the child on May 2, 2006, and Soule, in turn, indicated that she understood the court's directive. When Soule failed to appear or produce the child as ordered, the court awarded the mother sole legal custody with visitation to the father. After eventually locating and regaining physical custody of her son in August 2009, the mother commenced this violation proceeding against Soule and the father. Following a hearing in July 2010, Family Court upon application of the attorney for the child, dismissed the violation petition with prejudice, finding that the mother failed to establish that Soule was either served with or otherwise had knowledge of the May 2006 order. This appeal by the mother ensued and the Appellate Division found that the mother established a prima facie case of a willful violation as to Soule and, as such, Family Court erred in granting the motion to dismiss to that extent. The underlying pro se violation petition--liberally construed alleged a violation of both Judge Connerton's written May 2006 order and oral April 2006 directive, the latter of which ordered Soule to produce the child in court on May 2, 2006. Although there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Soule had actual knowledge of the written May 2006 order there was no question that she had actual knowledge of Judge Connerton's April 2006 oral directive. In this regard, it is clear that "an oral 'order' or directive, issued in the contemnor's presence, placed upon the record and transcribed into the minutes of the proceeding, may be deemed a 'mandate' ... and, hence, may form the basis for contempt" (Matter of Betancourt v. Boughton, 204 A.D.2d 804, 808 [1994] ). It was clear from a review of the April 2006 transcript, of which Family Court took judicial notice, that Soule was repeatedly and unequivocally ordered by Judge Connerton to produce the child at the May 2006 court appearance, which, despite her acknowledgment of this directive and her expressed understanding thereof, Soule thereafter failed to do. Further, Soule's defiance of this clear and lawful mandate, as well as her subsequent conduct in secreting the child's whereabouts for the ensuing three years, plainly prejudiced the mother's parental rights and, was sufficient to establish a willful violation of Judge Connerton's April 2006 order. Accordingly, the motion dismissing the violation petition against Soule was denied and the matter was remitted to Family Court for further proceedings. In a footnote the court observed that Family Court, without objection, took judicial notice of "all prior proceedings involving [the child at issue]. The mere fact that the court did so in the context of a separate Family Court proceeding involving the child was of no moment, as a court may take judicial notice of prior judicial proceedings though in a different court and involving different parties. Family Court also took judicial notice of Judge Connerton's May 2006 order.

Once a Scientific Procedure Has Been Proved Reliable, a Frye Inquiry Need Not Be Conducted Each Time Such Evidence Is Offered and Courts May Take Judicial Notice of its Reliability

In Matter of Bethany F, 925 N.Y.S.2d 737 (4 Dept, 2011) respondent father
appealed from an order that placed him under the supervision of petitioner based on a finding that he sexually abused his daughter. The Appellate Division affirmed holding that Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a Frye hearing with respect to the admissibility of validation testimony of a court-appointed mental health counselor. "Once a scientific procedure has been proved reliable, a Frye inquiry
need not be conducted each time such evidence is offered and courts may take
judicial notice of its reliability (People v. Hopkins, 46 A.D.3d 1449, 1450, 848 N.Y.S.2d 460]; see People v. LeGrand, 8 N.Y.3d 449, 458, 835 N.Y.S.2d 523, 867 N.E.2d 374). Here, the court-appointed counselor utilized the Sgroi method to interview the child and make a determination with respect to the veracity of her allegations. The Court of Appeals has cited to Dr. Sgroi's "Handbook of Clinical Intervention in Child Sexual Abuse" (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 120-121, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 9140, and other courts in New York State have admitted validation testimony of experts who have utilized the Sgroi method. The court-appointed counselor testified at the hearing that the Sgroi method was used by "all" counselors in the field to validate allegations of sexual abuse. Inasmuch as a Frye hearing is required only where a party seeks to introduce testimony on a novel topic (see People v. Garrow, 75
A.D.3d 849, 852, 904 N.Y.S.2d 589), and there was no indication in the record that the methods used by the court-appointed counselor to validate the allegations of sexual abuse in this case were novel, the father's motion for a Frye hearing was properly denied.

Important New Decisions - July 13, 2011

2011-07-17T14:43:00.000-04:00

Antithetical to Grant Standing Due to Existence of No Contact Order.

In Matter of Thomas X, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2640258 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) the Appellate Division affirmed an order which dismissed Wayne RR.'s applications, in two proceedings for custody of the children. When the Broome County Department of Social Services alleged that respondent Megan X. (mother) had violated the terms of Family Court's order directing her to ensure that her children (born in 1997, 2002 and 2003) have no contact with her boyfriend, Wayne RR. (petitioner), who is a known sex offender, she surrendered her parental rights. The mother had previously admitted to allegations of neglect after allowing unsupervised and inappropriate contact between petitioner and the children. Thereupon, petitioner commenced two proceedings seeking custody of the children. Finding that petitioner lacked standing, Family Court dismissed his petitions without a hearing. Family Court also granted a one-year order of protection in favor of the children against petitioner and denied his subsequent motion to vacate that order. The Appellate Division held that inasmuch as petitioner has no biological relationship to the children, his standing to seek custody was determined under the common-law standard requiring the establishment of extraordinary factual circumstances (see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 548 [1976]). While the mother's surrender, the absence of the biological fathers from the children's lives and the lack of any other suitable relative may normally be considered as extraordinary circumstances the Appellate Division agreed with Family Court that it would be antithetical here to grant standing in spite of the existence of the no contact order. The mother admitted neglect based, in part, on allowing petitioner, who had a history of exposing himself to children, to have unsupervised contact with the children, to sleep in the same bed with the male middle child and to shower and urinate in the toilet together with the oldest male child. Given the lack of any real factual dispute regarding petitioner's role in the circumstances leading to the mother's admission of neglect and the issuance of an order directing her to ensure that he have no contact with the children, it would not disturb Family
Court's conclusion that he lacked standing to seek custody.

Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Cplr 3211 May Be Directed Only Against a Cause of Action or a Defense, Not a Motion

In Matter of Burnham v Brenna, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2624043 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the father moved to dismiss the mother's motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 to renew her prior motion and for an award of an attorney's fee. The Appellate Division held that Family Court properly denied the father's motion, because a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 may be directed only against a cause of action or a defense, not a motion (see CPLR 3211[a], [b] ). The proper response to the mother's motion would have been to submit opposition papers (see CPLR 2214[b] ).

It Is Error as a Matter of Law to Make an Order Respecting Custody, Even in a Pendente Lite Context, Based on Controverted Allegations Without a Full Hearing

In Matter of Swinson v Brewington, 84 A.D.3d 1251, 925 N.Y.S.2d 96 (2d Dept, 2011) petitioner father and the respondent mother were in a relationship from 2001 to 2004, but were never married. Their son David was born on May 10, 2002. From the time of his birth, David lived with his mother in Brooklyn while his father visited him at least four times a month. There was no court order concerning David's custody. In the Spring of 2006 the father moved to Tennessee. Beginning in 2007, David spent the summer with his father in Tennessee, and remained during the school year in Brooklyn with his mother. The father also traveled to Brooklyn to visit David during the Christmas holiday season in 2006, 2007, and 2008. At the end of the summer in August 2009, the father enrolled David in school in Tennessee, rather than return David to his mother in Brooklyn. He also filed a petition for custody. Shortly thereafter, the mother filed a cross petition for custody. When the parties initially appeared before the Family Court on September 8, 2009, the Family Court decided that David should remain in Tennessee so as not to disturb the status quo until the court received more information, since David had started school on August 10, 2009. Toward that end, the Family Court referred the matter to a judicial hearing officer for an evidentiary hearing. On October 26, 2009, the parties appeared before the Judicial Hearing Officer, at which time no testimony was taken or exhibits received, although the father indicated he was prepared to go forward. There was only oral argument on the issue of temporary custody. In support of his petition, the father annexed David's file from PS 329, David's former school in Brooklyn, which included his school records and his teachers' notes regarding various behavior issues and interactions with the mother. PS 329's file showed that for the 2008/2009 school year, David had excessive absences, was frequently tardy, and performed poorly. It also documented that from April to June 2009, David used profanity toward his teacher and classmates on numerous occasions, pushed his classmates, and punched himself. The teachers' notes also indicated that the mother was asked to leave the school grounds one morning when she began harassing another child about bothering David, and failed to attend an appointment with school personnel to discuss David's behavior. During this appearance, the attorney for the child stated, without submitting any evidence in support of her comments, that David was a special needs child and, as such, would not receive the services as provided for by PS 329 pursuant to his Individual Education Plan at his school in Tennessee. She acknowledged that David did not want to choose between his parents because he loved both of them, but it was her position that the mother should be issued a temporary order of custody. The father objected to the attorney for the child making a "report" and providing her own recommendation to the Judicial Hearing Officer. He disputed the statements made by the attorney for the child with respect to the sufficiency of David's school in Tennessee and sought to enter David's Tennessee school records into evidence. However, the Judicial Hearing Officer refused to admit the records or proceed with a hearing. In an order dated October 26, 2009, the Judicial Hearing Officer awarded temporary custody of David to the mother. The Appellate Divison pointed out that as a general rule, while temporary custody may be properly fixed without a hearing where sufficient facts are shown by uncontroverted affidavits, it is error as a matter of law to make an order respecting custody, even in a pendente lite context, based on controverted allegations without having had the benefit of a full hearing. The Judicial Hearing Officer erred in relying on the report of the attorney for the child and refusing to take testimony and receive documentary evidence offered by the father to refute the report. While attorneys for the children, as advocates, may make their positions known to the court orally or in writing, presenting reports containing facts which are not part of the record or making ex parte submissions to the court are inappropriate practices (citing Weiglhofer v. Weiglhofer, 1 A.D.3d 786, 788, 766 N.Y.S.2d 727 n.). Here, the Judicial Hearing Officer erroneously allowed the attorney for the child to refer to matters that were not in evidence, and compounded its error by refusing to allow the father to proffer documentary evidence to contradict the assertions of the attorney for the child.

Important New Decisions - July 6, 2011

2011-07-06T11:12:00.000-04:00

Counsel Sanctioned for Obtaining From Court a “So-Ordered Trial Subpoena Before Trial Date Was Set

In Duval v Duval, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2574001 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and her counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Under the circumstances presented, the conduct of the plaintiff and her counsel in obtaining a "so-ordered" subpoena duces tecum and serving it upon Long Island Jewish Medical Center to obtain the defendant's medical records prior to filing a note of issue and before a trial date was set was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c), as it was completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Contrary to the defendant's contention, pretrial disclosure on the issue of child custody is permissible with respect to a parent's health, since the parties to a contested custody proceeding place their physical and mental conditions in issue. Here, in her attempt to obtain pretrial disclosure of the defendant's medical records in connection with the issue of child custody, the plaintiff sought a "so-ordered" trial subpoena duces tecum from the Supreme Court, thereby obviating the need to obtain the defendant's written authorization to release the records. The plaintiff also failed to serve the subpoena on the defendant in a timely manner, thus depriving him of the opportunity to request withdrawal of the subpoena or to make a timely motion to quash. Moreover, it can be inferred from the record that the challenged conduct was designed primarily to harass and maliciously injure the defendant. In view of the foregoing, the defendant's motion to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and her counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 should have been granted. It remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for a hearing on the issue of the amount of an appropriate sanction to be imposed upon the plaintiff and her counsel. The Appellate Division also held that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, with limited exception, defendant's motion to suppress all information relating to the contents of records produced in response to the subpoena duces tecum served upon Long Island Jewish Medical Center and to preclude the plaintiff from using such information. Under the circumstances of this case, suppression and preclusion, along with the imposition of a sanction, were the appropriate remedies for the improper manner in which those records were obtained (see CPLR 3103[c] ). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress all information relating to the contents of records produced in response to the subpoena served upon Long Island Jewish Medical Center and to preclude the plaintiff from using such information should have been granted in its entirety, with a directive that the plaintiff and her counsel deliver all records produced in response to the aforementioned subpoena to the defendant and to affirm that all such records, and any copies thereof, have been so returned and/or
destroyed and were not transmitted to any third party.

Appellate Divison Holds That Emancipation Occurs When Child Becomes Economically Independent Through Employment and Is Self-supporting.

In Smith v Smith, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2571089 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division affirmed an order which, granted the wife child support and spousal support. It found that the record supported the Support Magistrate's determination that the parties' son was not emancipated. It pointed out that a parent is obligated to support his or her child until the age of 21 unless the child becomes emancipated, which occurs once the child becomes economically independent through employment and is self-supporting. Although the parties' son worked full-time, paid for his own car insurance, and paid for his own cell phone, the fact that his mother still paid for his food, shelter, clothing, and health and dental insurance, demonstrated that he was not economically independent of his parents.

Family Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Consider Objections Unless Proof of Service Filed

In Matter of Girgenti v Cress, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2571850 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the father appealed from an order of the family court which dismissed his petition to enforce a stipulation of settlement concerning child support arrears. The Appellate Division affirmed the order finding that the issues raised by the father on this appeal are not reviewable, since he failed to file proof of service of a copy of the objections on the mother. Family Court Act 439(e) provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] party filing objections shall serve a copy of such objections upon the opposing party," and that "[p]roof of service upon the opposing party shall be filed with the court at the time of
filing of objections and any rebuttal." By failing to file proof of service of a copy of his objections on the mother, the father failed to fulfill a condition precedent to filing timely written objections to the Support Magistrate's order. Consequently, the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the objections and the father waived his right to appellate review.

Denial of Objections to Finding of Willfulness and Recommendation of Incarceration Proper since Recommendations Had No Force or Effect until Confirmed

In Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2572307 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the Appellate Divison observed that to establish entitlement to a downward modification of a child support order entered on consent, a party has the burden of showing that there has been a substantial change in circumstances. Loss of employment may at times constitute a substantial change in circumstances. A party seeking a downward modification of his or her child support obligation based upon a loss of employment has the burden of demonstrating that he or she diligently sought to obtain employment commensurate with his or her earning capacity . Here, the father testified that he was unable to pay child support because he had not worked since 2008 and was not eligible to receive unemployment benefits. He stated that he had been working for the Renaissance Hotel until May 2008, but that he left that job after the hotel significantly cut back his hours. He thereafter obtained employment at a pizzeria, where he was initially able to work longer hours. Although he was eventually let go from his position at
the pizzeria, he did not, contrary to the Support Magistrate's finding, quit the pizzeria job. The father further testified in detail that he attempted to obtain employment at various specified restaurants and supermarkets; that he went to an employment agency called Labor Ready to find a job; that he looked for employment in newspapers and the "Pennysaver" publication; and that he explored job leads which he learned of via word-of-mouth. Under these circumstances, the father demonstrated that his loss of employment constituted a substantial change in circumstances, and that he made a good faith effort to obtain new employment which was commensurate with his qualifications and experience. Thus, the Support Magistrate's determination that the father failed to satisfy his burden of establishing an inability to pay his child support
obligation was not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the father's objections
to the denial of his petition for downward modification of his child support
obligations should have been granted.
The Appellate Division pointed out that to the extent that the father filed objections to the Support Magistrate's finding of willfulness and her recommendation of a term of incarceration of six months, the denial of those objections was proper, since the Support Magistrate's recommendations had no force and effect until confirmed by the Family Court Judge. Upon, in effect, confirming the willfulness finding, the Family Court issued an order of commitment directing that the father be committed to the Westchester County Jail unless he purged his contempt by paying the sum of $1140 to the Support Collection Unit. The father's failure to pay child support constituted
prima facie evidence of a willful violation. This prima facie showing shifted the burden to the father to come forward with competent, credible evidence that his failure to pay support in accordance with the terms of the order on consent was not willful. In the absence of proof of an ability to pay, an order of commitment for willful violation of a support order may not stand. Based upon the evidence in the record, the father met his burden of establishing his inability to meet his child support obligation set forth in the
order dated April 11, 2005. The evidence did not support the Support Magistrate's
finding that the father had the means, resources, and ability to pay child support, but chose not do so.

New York's Marriage Equality Act

2011-06-27T15:57:00.003-04:00

The Marriage Equality Act

On June 24, 2011 New York enacted “The Marriage Equality Act’, which amended the domestic relations law to grant same-sex couples the ability to enter into civil marriages in New York. New York, has joined Vermont and New Hampshire in becoming the third state to pass legislation permitting same-sex marriage. The only othr U.S. jurisdictions that permit same-sex marriage are the District of Columbia, which also passed a same-sex marriage law, and Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa which permit same-sex marriage as a consequence of court rulings.

Although the New York Domestic Relations Law contains no specific prohibition against marriages between individuals of the same sex, the Court of Appeals has held that the law limits marriage within New York State to different-sex couples. At the same time, in recognition of common law principles, New York courts have also held that marriages between individuals of the same sex legally performed in other jurisdictions are "entitled to recognition in New York in the absence of express legislation to the contrary."

The Marriage Equality Act provides that an otherwise valid marriage shall be valid regardless of whether the parties are of the same sex or different sex. To ensure that the law does not improperly intrude into matters of conscience or religious belief, the Act affirms that no member of the clergy can be compelled to solemnize any marriage. The law also ensures that the statutory protections for religious organizations found in the New York Human Rights law remains intact, including, guaranteeing that religious institutions remain free to choose who may use their facilities and halls for marriage ceremonies and celebrations, to whom they rent their housing accommodations, or to whom they provide religious services, consistent with their religious principles. The Act contains language to ensure that benevolent organizations remain exempt from New York prohibitions against discrimination in public accommodations, and are not be required to rent social halls to weddings of same-sex or other couples it chooses not to accommodate.

The Domestic Relations Law was amended by adding two new sections Domestic Relations Law §§10-a and 10-b to read as follows:

§ 10-a. Parties to a marriage.

1. A marriage that is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or different sex.

2. No government treatment or legal status, effect, right, benefit, privilege, protection or responsibility relating to marriage, whether deriving from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of law, shall differ based on the parties to the marriage being or having been of the same sex rather than a different sex. When necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses under the law, all gender-specific language or terms shall be construed in a gender-neutral manner in all such sources of law. (Laws of 2011, Ch 95, § 3, effective July 24, 2011)

§ 10-b. Religious exception.

1. Notwithstanding any state, local or municipal law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, a religious entity as defined under the education law or section two of the religious corporations law, or a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state, or a not-for- profit corporation operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee thereof, being managed, directed, or super vised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order, or a not-for-profit corporation as described in this subdivision,
shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any such refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit corporation operated,
supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee thereof being managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order, or a not-for-profit corporation.

2. Notwithstanding any state, local or municipal law or rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, nothing in this article shall limit or diminish the right, pursuant to subdivision eleven of section two hundred ninety-six of the executive law, of any religious or denominational institution or organization, or any organ-
ization operated for charitable or educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, to limit employment or sales or rental of housing accommodations or admission to or give preference to persons of the same religion or denomination or from taking such action as is calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is estab-
lished or maintained.

3. Nothing in this section shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions otherwise provided to religious organizations under section three of article one of the constitution of the state of New York. ( Laws of 2011, Ch 96, § 1, effective July 24, 2011)

Domestic Relations Law § 13 was amended to add the last sentence which provides that “No application for a marriage license shall be denied on the ground that the parties are of the same, or a different, sex. Domestic Relations Law §13 provides as follows:

§ 13. Marriage licenses. It shall be necessary for all persons intended to be married in New York state to obtain a marriage license from a town or city clerk in New York state and to deliver said license, within sixty days, to the clergyman or magistrate who is to officiate before the marriage ceremony may be performed. In case of a marriage contracted pursuant to subdivision four of section eleven of this chapter, such license shall be delivered to the judge of the court of record before whom the acknowledgment is to be taken. If either party to the marriage resides upon an island located not less than twenty-five miles from the office or residence of the town clerk of the town of which such island is a part, and if such office or residence is not on such island such license may be obtained from any justice of the peace residing on such island, and such justice, in respect to powers and duties relating to marriage licenses, shall be subject to the provisions of this article governing town clerks and shall file all statements or affidavits received by him while acting under the provisions of this section with the town clerk of such town. No application for a marriage license shall be denied on the ground that the parties are of the same, or a different, sex. (Laws of 2011, Ch 95, § 4, effective July 24, 2011)

Domestic Relations Law §11 was amended to make clear that no member of the clergy acting in such capacity may be required to perform any marriage. Domestic Relations Law §11, subdivision 1 was amended, to add the provision that “no clergyman or minister as defined in section two of the religious corporations law, or Society for Ethical Culture leader shall be required to solemnize any marriage when acting in his or her capacity under this subdivision, and subdivision 1-a was added. (Laws of 2011, Ch 95, § 5, as amended by Laws of 2011, Ch 96, §2, effective July 24, 2011)

Domestic Relations Law §11 provides:

11 1. A clergyman or minister of any religion, or by the senior leader, or any of the other leaders, of The Society for Ethical Culture in the city of New York, having its principal office in the borough of Manhattan, or by the leader of The Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture, having its principal office in the borough of Brooklyn of the city of
New York, or of the Westchester Ethical Society, having its principal office in Westchester county, or of the Ethical Culture Society of Long Island, having its principal office in Nassau county, or of the Riverdale-Yonkers Ethical Society having its principal office in Bronx county, or by the leader of any other Ethical Culture Society affiliated with the American Ethical Union; provided that no clergyman or minister as defined in section two of the religious corporations law, or Society for Ethical Culture leader shall be required to solemnize any marriage
when acting in his or her capacity under this subdivision. (Laws of 2011, Ch 95, § 5, as amended by Laws of 2011, Ch 96, §2, effective July 24, 2011)

1-a. A refusal by a clergyman or minister as defined in section two of the religious corporations law, or Society for Ethical Culture leader to solemnize any marriage under this subdivision shall not create a civil claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits or discriminate against such clergyman or minister. (Laws of 2011, Ch 95, § 5, as amended by Laws of 2011, Ch 96, §2, effective July 24, 2011)

The legislation provides that it is “...to be construed as a whole, and all parts of it are to be read and construed together. If any part of this act shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder of this act shall be invalidated. Nothing herein shall be construed to affect the parties' right to appeal the matter. “(Laws of 2011, Ch 96, § 3 which added § 5-a to Laws of 2011, Ch 95)

New York Enacts Same-Sex Marriage Laws on June 24, 2011

2011-06-25T22:23:00.001-04:00

Laws of 2001, Ch 95 enacted the Marriage Equality Act, effective July 24, 2011. It amended New York's Domestic Relations Law to provide that:

•A marriage that is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or different sex
•No government treatment or legal status, effect, right, benefit, privilege, protection or responsibility relating to marriage shall differ based on the parties to the marriage being the same sex or a different sex
•No application for a marriage license shall be denied on the ground that the parties are of the same or a different sex.

Laws of 2011, Ch 96, effective July 24, 2011, was passed at the same time as the Marriage Equality ACt and amended the Marriage Equality Act to include protections for religious organizations. The Act states that no religious entity, benevolent organization or not-for-profit corporation that is operated, supervised or controlled by a religious entity, or their employees can be required to perform marriage ceremonies or provide their facilities for marriage ceremonies, consistent with their religious principles. In addition, religious entities will not be subject to any legal action for refusing marriage ceremonies. The Act will grant equal access to the government-created legal institution of civil marriage while leaving the religious institution of marriage to its own separate and fully autonomous sphere. Additionally, the Act was amended to include a clause that states that if any part is deemed invalid through the judicial process and after all appeals in the courts, the entire Act would be considered invalid.

Important New Decisions - June 22, 2011

2011-06-22T10:09:00.001-04:00

Need to Give Appropriate Weight to the Feasibility of Preserving the Relationship Between the Parent and the Child Does Not Take Precedence over the Need to Give Appropriate Weight to the Economic Necessity for the Relocation

In Matter of Butler v Hess, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2436589 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.) Petitioner father commenced a proceeding seeking to modify the parties' existing custody arrangement, pursuant to which the parties had joint custody with primary physical residence with respondent mother and visitation with the father. The father sought to prevent the mother from relocating with the child to Pennsylvania and sought sole custody of the child. The mother filed a cross petition in which she sought permission for the child to relocate with her to Pennsylvania. On appeal the Appellate Division agreed with her contention that Family Court erred in denying her cross petition. The record established that, pursuant to the existing arrangement, the father had visitation with the child on alternate weekends and Sunday overnights on the first Sunday of every month that does not fall within his regular access time. The mother remarried in December 2003, when the child was six years old, and the mother and the child began living with the mother's husband at that time. In December 2006, the mother lost her job as a result of budget cutbacks and, in July 2007, the mother's husband lost his job after his position was eliminated. The mother's husband accepted a job in Pennsylvania in October 2007, which was the basis for the mother's cross petition seeking permission to relocate with the child to Pennsylvania to join her husband. The Court concluded that the mother established by the requisite preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation would serve the child's best interests" (Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 741). While no single factor is determinative, the Court of Appeals in Tropea recognized that economic necessity may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move. The record reflected that the court did not adequately, if at all, consider the financial considerations underlying the requested relocation. The mother requested permission to relocate because she and her husband lost their jobs within a relatively short period of time. The mother's husband testified that both his health insurance, which also covered the mother and the child, and his severance pay ran out in August 2007. After the mother's husband lost his job, he and the mother depleted their savings and their house was placed into foreclosure. The mother and her husband testified that they unsuccessfully attempted to locate jobs in Western New York and that the mother's husband accepted the job in Pennsylvania out of financial necessity. The court based its determination primarily on its conclusion that the relocation would "qualitatively affect" the child's relationship with the father.
That was error because the need to 'give appropriate weight to the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the parent without primary physical custody and [the child through suitable visitation arrangements does not take precedence over the need to give appropriate weight to the economic necessity for the relocation (Matter of Cynthia L.C. v. James L.S., 30 AD3d 1085, 1086, quoting Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d at 740-741). The record established that the proposed relocation would not have a substantial impact on the visitation schedule. The mother and the husband testified that they would transport the child to and from Pennsylvania every other weekend, and they offered to pay for a hotel for the father in Pennsylvania on his off-weekends so that he could exercise additional access with the child. The mother further testified that the holiday access schedule would remain the same because she and her husband would be returning to Western New York at those times to visit with their respective families, who resided there. In addition, the mother's husband purchased video conferencing equipment for his household and the father's household to enable the father and the child to communicate during the week and on the father's off-weekends. Thus, the mother established "the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the [father] and child through suitable visitation arrangements" (Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d at 741)

Appeal Denied For Failure to Assemble Proper Record

In Gorelik v Gorelik, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2410437 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division pointed out that it is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal, which must include any relevant transcripts of proceedings before the Supreme Court. The plaintiff sought review of the judgment awarding the defendant the principal sum of $12,257, representing his pro rata share of the children's unreimbursed medical expenses and 100% of their summer camp expenses, made after a hearing was held to determine the validity and reasonableness of the claimed expenses. However, the plaintiff failed to include the hearing transcripts in the record on appeal. Accordingly, the record was inadequate to enable the Court to render an informed decision on the remaining issues raised in the plaintiff's brief including the propriety of the amounts awarded.

Allegations That Father Was Induced by Mother's Misrepresentations of Her Financial Circumstances to Enter into Stipulation Were Sufficient to Warrant Hearing on Issue of Fraudulent Inducement

In Cervera v Bressler, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2410503 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) pursuant to the decision and order of the Appellate Division (Cervera v. Bressler, 50 AD3d 837), a hearing was commenced on June 10, 2008, before a Special Referee Snyder, to consider the parties' relative financial positions and address the father's applications for reapportionment of the parties' respective obligations for payment of fees of the forensic evaluator and the attorney for the child from the 50/50 apportionment originally agreed to, and for an award of an attorney's fee. While that hearing, which concluded sometime in October 2009, was ongoing, the father moved to vacate certain portions of a so-ordered stipulation dated July 19, 2004 whereby the father waived his right to seek an attorney's fee and reapportionment of fees and costs of the court forensic evaluator and the attorney for the child incurred up to the date of the stipulation, in connection with a custody dispute between the parties beginning in 2002. In support of the motion, the father argued that those portions of the stipulation should be vacated based upon new evidence discovered during the ongoing hearing regarding the parties' finances, that the mother had misrepresented her finances in 2004. The father claimed that he had relied upon those misrepresentations in entering into the stipulation in which he agreed to waive his rights. Supreme Court denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to vacate the aforementioned portions of the stipulation, determining that the claims regarding the stipulation and fees incurred in connection with the litigation resolved thereby, were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, that the father had failed to meet his burden of showing that the stipulation was the result of fraud or overreaching, or that its terms were unconscionable, and that, in any event, even if the stipulation was proven to have been procured by fraud, the father had ratified it by accepting its benefits for a period of more than five years.

The Appellate Division reversed and remitted for a hearing. It held that the father's allegations that he was induced by the mother's misrepresentations of her financial circumstances to enter into the stipulation were sufficient to warrant a hearing on the issue of whether those portions of the stipulation were fraudulently induced. The father's allegations were supported by evidence, elicited at the hearing before the Special Referee regarding the financial circumstances of the parties, that the mother had assets available to her in 2004 of at least $306,631, her husband's gross income as reported on their joint tax returns for 2004, as opposed to the $105,000 gross income reported on her Statement of Net Worth dated May 3, 2004, the sole document provided by her at the time of the stipulation. Moreover, the mother's 2004 joint bank statements provided at the hearing before the Special Referee showed deposits totaling approximately $450,000 for that year, whereas the 2004 Statement of Net Worth was blank for "Total Cash Accounts."
Supreme Court erred in determining that the father was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from litigating the issues of counsel fees and reapportionment of the parties' responsibilities for payment of fees incurred in connection with litigation from 2002 up to the date of the stipulation. "In order to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel, (1) the identical issue must have necessarily been decided in the prior [litigation] and be decisive of the present [motion], and (2) the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue must have had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination". The issues regarding the fees incurred prior to the stipulation were never litigated, since the father waived his right to do so by the stipulation at issue herein.
The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court erred in concluding that the father had "knowingly and voluntarily" waived his rights to litigate these issues, since the question raised by the new evidence was precisely that: whether the father's waiver was knowing and voluntary, or whether it was fraudulently induced by the mother's misrepresentations.
As to the father's right to move to vacate portions of the stipulation almost five years after the stipulation was entered into, a waiver will not be inferred from mere silence or inaction. A waiver requires that the party to be estopped be aware of certain facts and, being aware of them, elect not to take advantage of them.
Moreover, estoppel will lie only where an individual has accepted the benefits of an agreement. Since the father did not have express knowledge of the mother's assets until sometime during the hearing regarding the parties' relative financial positions, which commenced on June 10, 2008, and concluded in October 2009, the father could not be said to have waived his right to seek vacatur of the stipulation simply because his motion was brought almost five years after the stipulation was entered into and there was no evidence that the father enjoyed any "benefits" of the stipulation by foregoing a possible award of an attorney's fee or reimbursement of payment of fees based upon a reapportionment of the parties' responsibilities for the same.

Important New Decisions - June 15, 2011

2011-06-15T10:53:00.002-04:00

Fair Trial Denied Where Family Court Judge Took on the Function and Appearance of an Advocate

In Matter of Jacquilin M, 83 A.D.3d 844, 922 N.Y.S.2d 111 (2 Dept, 2011) Jacqulin M. appealed from an order of disposition of the Family which, upon a fact-finding order of a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed her on probation for a period of 18 months. The order of disposition was reversed on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the fact-finding order was vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court for a new fact-finding hearing. The appellant's contention that she was deprived of a fair trial because the Family Court Judge took on the function of an advocate by excessively intervening in the fact-finding hearing was unpreserved for appellate review. However, the Appellate Division reached this issue in the exercise of its interest of justice jurisdiction because the Family Court Judge's excessive intervention deprived the appellant of her right to a fair fact-finding hearing. It observed that although trial courts may appropriately take an active role in the presentation of evidence "in order to clarify a confusing issue or to avoid misleading the trier of fact" (People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67, 745 N.Y.S.2d 782, 772 N.E.2d 1140), the function of the judge is "to protect the record at trial, not to make it". Thus, while a certain degree of judicial intervention in the presentation of evidence is permissible, "the line is crossed when the judge takes on either the function or appearance of an advocate at trial" (People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d at 67, 745 N.Y.S.2d 782, 772 N.E.2d 1140; see People v. Zamorano, 301 A.D.2d 544, 546, 754 N.Y.S.2d 645). These principles apply in bench trials, including juvenile delinquency proceedings. Here, the Family Court Judge took on the function and appearance of an advocate by extensively participating in both the direct and cross-examination of the two presentment agency witnesses and eliciting testimony which strengthened the presentment agency's case. Furthermore, when the appellant indicated, during the course of her direct examination, that a certain document which would support her defense had been turned over to a Probation Department officer, the Judge interrupted her testimony to question a Probation Department Court Liaison who was present in the courtroom about whether documents of this nature would indeed be kept by the Probation Department. The Judge then summoned the Probation Department officer assigned to the appellant's case to the courtroom, and indicated to the appellant's attorney that unless he agreed to stipulate as to what certain Probation Department records would reflect, those records would be admitted into evidence through the Probation Officer's testimony. It was clear from the record that neither the presentment agency nor the appellant's attorney intended to call the Probation Officer as a witness or enter the Probation Department records into evidence, and the stipulation regarding what those records reflected had the effect of rebutting a portion of the appellant's testimony. Thus, the Judge essentially "assumed the parties' traditional role of deciding what evidence to present" . Furthermore, the Judge offered no explanation on the record as to why he felt compelled to solicit this evidence. Under these circumstances, a new fact-finding hearing was warranted.

Third Department Explains Difference Between in Camera Hearing and True Lincoln Hearing

In Matter of Spencer v Spencer, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2150028 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) the parties were the parents of three children (born in 1997, 1999 and 2001). In their divorce judgment, the parties agreed to joint legal custody, physical placement with respondent (mother), and visitation with petitioner (father) every other weekend. In 2009, the father commenced a proceeding seeking to modify the custodial arrangement based upon an improper relationship that the mother's male friend had with one of the parties' children while in the mother's care. Family Court temporarily placed the children with the father. After several court appearances and an in camera interview with each of the children, the court issued an order awarding primary physical custody to the father and extensive visitation to the mother. The Appellate Division found that the mother did not consent to the court making and order without a hearing, and held that Family Court erred by modifying the custody order without holding a fact-finding hearing. The father's petition adequately alleged a change in circumstances, namely that the mother exposed the children to a convicted sex offender and she was aware that this individual had an inappropriate relationship with one of the children. The mother admitted that an inappropriate relationship occurred, but denied knowing about it. The parties disagreed about most of the other allegations. The mother specifically objected to the court's failure to hold a hearing, and the court lacked record information that would permit it to determine whether the alleged change in circumstances required a modification of the prior custody order .A court may not grant a final order based upon mere allegations and a request by an attorney for a party or the children; evidentiary proof is required. Thus, it reversed the order on the law and remitted for Family Court to hold a hearing on the petition.
The Appellate Division observed that Family Court and the parties inaccurately referred to the in camera interviews with the children as a Lincoln hearing. The purpose of a Lincoln hearing in a custody proceeding "is to corroborate information acquired through testimonial or documentary evidence adduced during the fact-finding hearing" (Matter of Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270, 273 [1969] ). Thus, a true Lincoln hearing is held after, or during, a fact-finding hearing; there is no authority or legitimate purpose for courts to conduct such interviews in place of fact-finding hearings, and Family Court erred in doing so here. Additionally, it cautioned the court to protect the children's right to confidentiality by avoiding disclosure of what children reveal in camera during a custody proceeding.

Unsubstantiated Allegations Insufficient to Warrant the Invocation of Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction under UCCJEA.

In Segovia v Bushnell, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2150113 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) Respondent, the mother of two sons (born in 1999 and 2002), refused to release the children to the paternal grandparents for visitation and instead brought them to New York from Texas. A Texas court thereafter issued a temporary order granting custody to the father and petitioner, the paternal grandmother. Petitioner then commenced a proceeding seeking registration and enforcement of the Texas order ( Domestic Relations Law 77-d, 77-g). Respondent did not contest registration of the Texas order, but requested that Family Court exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction based on her allegations that the paternal grandparents had sexually abused the children (Domestic Relations Law 76-c). Family Court placed the children in the temporary custody of the Department of Social Services and ordered an investigation into respondent's allegations. Upon conclusion of the investigation, Family Court found the allegations to be unfounded and granted enforcement of the Texas order.
The Appellate Divison affirmed. Family Court heard, without objection, testimony that the children met with a local sexual abuse validator who determined that there was no sexual abuse, and it reviewed an investigative report prepared by authorities in Texas after respondent made the same allegations there. The Texas authorities conducted an exhaustive review and found no evidence to substantiate the allegations of sexual abuse. In light of the information rebutting respondent's claims, it agreed with Family Court that her unsubstantiated allegations were insufficient to warrant the invocation of temporary emergency jurisdiction.

The Rights and Needs of the Children Must Be Accorded the Greatest Weight in a Relocation Case

In Alaire K.G. v Anthony P.G.,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2135385 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.) the First Department, in an opinion by Justice Moskowitz, observed that the appeal, involving a custodial parent's request to relocate with the parties' child, fell within the class of cases that "present some of the knottiest and most disturbing problems that our courts are called upon to resolve" (Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 736 [1996] ). The parties were married in January 2004, separated about a year and a half later and were divorced on July 13, 2006. They were the parents of a now six-year-old boy born on May 17, 2004. 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 had a history of irregular employment and was currently not employed. At the time of trial, the mother, who was remarried, cared for her younger child from her second marriage, full time. 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. In March 2008, the mother met her future husband, Hugh Bonnar, on Match.com. Bonnar was retired from the Air Force, lived in North Carolina and was then involved in a nation-wide job search. Ultimately, Bonnar 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 Bonnar became engaged in May 2008. Soon after her engagement, the mother approached the father about moving to California to live with Bonnar. The father was concerned about the distance and the stability of the mother's new relationship. The parties therefore met with a mediator to try to work out an arrangement by which the mother could leave the child with the father temporarily while she settled in California. The mediator sent a letter, dated May 12, 2008, that purported to memorialize the parties' agreement. The letter stated that the parties agreed that the child would stay with the father from June 27, 2008 until December 31, 2008, with the mother making several long weekend visits to New York. Mother and son were also to participate in a webcam phone call two to three times a week. The letter did not address where the child would live after December 31, 2008. However, the father refused to sign an agreement embodying these terms and instead asked the mother to sign over custody to him. She refused. The mother left for California on June 26, 2008. She claimed that she never intended the father to have permanent custody, but arrangements to move to California had become irreversible by the time she learned that the father did not agree. The mother gave birth to Bonnar's son on April 4, 2009. She and Bonnar were also married in April 2009.
On July 17, 2008, the father filed a petition seeking sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child, claiming that the mother had abandoned the child. On December 1, 2008, the mother filed a petition for relocation.
Justice Moskowitz pointed out that each relocation request must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances and with the predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child" (citing Tropea v. Tropea 87 N.Y.2d 727, 739 [1996] ). The dissent stated that Tropea dictates that the court's "central concern" should be the impact of the move on the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent. Justice Moskowitz held that this interpretation misreads the case. Tropea states that "[o]f course, the impact of the move on the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent will remain a central concern." However, it is not "the" central concern. Rather, the case makes abundantly clear that "it is the rights and needs of the children that must be accorded the greatest weight". She noted that the Court of Appeals rejected the "three-tiered" analysis that required a court to determine first "whether the proposed relocation would deprive the noncustodial parent of regular and meaningful access to the child".
The court found that there was a sound and substantial basis in the record for the determination granting the mother's request to relocate to California with her son. First, there was no question that the California home was financially more stable than the father's home. The stepfather had a steady job with Northrop Grumman that provided his family with health insurance. By contrast, the father was not currently working. Although he had been offered a job as a teacher's aide, he had postponed his start date. He was currently on some type of public assistance and received money from his parents in Ireland. He admitted that "it's not been easy like money wise." He was not currently in a relationship. Given his bleak financial circumstances, with no career or family in New York, it appeared that there was nothing keeping the father from moving to San Diego himself to be closer to his son. The Court quoted that part of Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d at 740 which said"where the custodial parent's reasons for moving are deemed valid and sound, the court in a proper case might consider the possibility and feasibility of a parallel move by an involved and committed noncustodial parent as an alternative to restricting a custodial parent's mobility". Further, living in San Diego ensured that the child would grow up in the same house as his half brother. The father agreed that it was very important for the child to have a brother in his life. He even testified that he actually expected the child eventually to move to California so that he could be with his brother, the father was merely opposed to the date of the move. The mother established that the child would have access to an education that was just as good as, if not better than, his school in New York. Moreover, she testified that Bonnar's status as a veteran would allow the child to attend college within the State of California's university system free of charge. The record also reflected that the mother went out of her way to facilitate communication between the child and his father. The same could not be said of the father with respect to communication between the child and his mother. Finally, the child's own attorney recommended that the court permit the mother to relocate with the child, a factor that militated in favor of affirming the result the court reached.
Justice Moskowitz commented that the dissent's characterization of the mother as putting her own romantic interests ahead of her son's welfare was rank speculation. It was just as likely that the mother, herself an only child, was pursuing marriage aggressively to produce a sibling for her son, before he became much older, and an intact family. Regardless of the mother's motivations, it is the best interest of the child that must guide the decision.
The Court found that the visitation schedule, that required the mother to pay for air travel for the child to be with the father on numerous extended weekend visits throughout the year in addition to extended summer and holiday visits, did not deprive the father of the opportunity to maintain a close relationship with his son .

Memorandum of Understanding Was Not a Final Agreement Even Thought it Contemplated Parties' Subsequent Execution of "Opting-out Agreement”

In Vega v Papaleo, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2224860 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) Plaintiff commenced the action for divorce in 2006 on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. In 2008, after engaging in protracted litigation and settlement negotiations, the parties, both of whom were represented by counsel, signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that provided for distribution of the parties' marital assets. Plaintiff's attorney then notified Supreme Court that the matter had been resolved and the case, which had been scheduled for trial, was removed from the trial calendar. Thereafter, plaintiff was presented with a settlement agreement but refused to sign it. Plaintiff subsequently retained new counsel and the matter was restored to the trial calendar. After several pretrial conferences, Supreme Court granted a motion by defendant for summary judgment, seeking a judgment granting plaintiff a divorce and incorporating, but not merging, the terms of the MOU into the judgment of divorce. A judgment of divorce was entered accordingly, prompting this appeal by plaintiff.
On appeal Plaintiff argued that the MOU was not an enforceable agreement and that, even if it is enforceable, it should be set aside on the basis that her attorney fraudulently induced her to sign the document by misrepresenting its legal significance. The Appellate Division affirmed. It found that as the movant for summary judgment, defendant met his initial burden of demonstrating that the MOU was an enforceable agreement under Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(3), as the document, itself was in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded" (Domestic Relations Law 236[B] [3]; see CPLR 2104). Plaintiff conceded that the MOU met the statutory requirements. Her argument that it was not enforceable because it was not "endorsed" in open court was unavailing, as there is no requirement that a properly executed written settlement agreement be so endorsed Thus, the burden shifted to plaintiff to demonstrate by the proffer of admissible evidence the existence of material issues of fact requiring a trial. To that end, plaintiff submitted her own affidavit, and the affirmations of her current attorney and a friend who accompanied her to her then attorney's office on the day she signed the MOU. According to those submissions, plaintiff did not wish to sign the MOU because it did not address certain assets, but she ultimately signed it based upon her then attorney's assurances that those issues could be raised at a later time. Plaintiff alleges that she would not have signed the MOU if she had known that it would be considered a final agreement. As to the merits, plaintiff had not alleged that defendant, or anyone acting on defendant's behalf, perpetrated any fraud or duress upon her. While plaintiff may have other remedies available to her, her allegations--relating solely to her attorney's conduct–were insufficient to set aside the MOU.
The Appellate Division also rejected plaintiff's argument that the MOU was not a final agreement because it contemplated the parties' subsequent execution of an "opting-out agreement." The MOU provided that it "will be incorporated into a full opting-out agreement to be signed by the parties containing these terms and only those other terms which are necessary to have a full and complete opting-out agreement, but due to the time constraints, [the parties] may not have the ability to finalize an opting-out agreement prior to the date scheduled for trial." The MOU then goes on to address, in detail, numerous issues including, among other things, a division of various items of real property, business interests, bank accounts, retirement accounts, marital debt and maintenance payments. It also contained a provision that "any additional terms and agreements to be contained within the opting-out agreement shall not alter or change any of the terms or conditions set forth in this [MOU]." Although the MOU directed entry into a further agreement, its terms were not contingent upon entry into such agreement. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact sufficient to defeat defendant's motion.

Second Department Holds That 529 Plan College Fund Is Not a Bank Account under Stipulation for Divison of Assets

In Zuchowski v Zuchowski, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2279060 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the parties 2009 stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but did not merge into their judgment of divorce that was entered on June 17, 2009 provided that "all joint bank accounts have been split to the mutual satisfaction of the parties and here and forward each party shall keep any bank accounts in their respective names; namely, the wife in her name, the husband in his name." The stipulation also provided that "each party is responsible to pay the 50/50 share of college" for their children, but "the children shall avail themselves of every possible loan, grant or any other moneys offered to them by the college before the parties are respectfully [sic] required to contribute towards the education of the children." In an order dated January 11, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the defendant former husband's motion which was, in effect, to direct the plaintiff former wife to provide him with quarterly statements relating to a "529 Plan" sponsored by the State of New Hampshire and managed by Fidelity Investments, which the parties had established as a college fund for their son Peter, and to apply the money in the subject account to Peter's college expenses before either party would be required to contribute to such expenses. The former wife moved for leave to reargue, contending that since the 529 Plan was in her name, it was, under the terms of the stipulation of settlement, separate property belonging to her, and thus should be applied to reduce only her share of Peter's college costs. The account statements named the former wife as the "participant" and Peter as the "beneficiary," and the record indicated that the participant is considered to be the owner of the account assets until they are withdrawn. Supreme Court granted the former wife's motion and, upon reargument, vacated the portion of its January 11, 2010, order relating to the 529 Plan.
The Appellate Divison reversed on the law. It observed that when interpreting a contract, the court should arrive at a construction which will give fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties to reach a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties so that their reasonable expectations will be realized. Contrary to the former wife's contention, the stipulation of settlement could not reasonably be interpreted as treating the 529 Plan as one of the "bank accounts" that the party named as the account holder was entitled to "keep." While the stipulation of settlement provided that "all joint bank accounts have been split to the mutual satisfaction of the parties," there was nothing in the stipulation to support a finding that the parties intended the monetary assets they were allocating between themselves to include Peter's college fund. Although the former wife was technically the owner of the funds in the 529 Plan, the reason for that account's existence was not to personally benefit either of the parties, but to fund Peter's college education. Accordingly, upon reargument, the Supreme Court should have adhered to its original determination directing the former wife to provide the former husband with quarterly statements relating to the 529 Plan, and to apply the money in that account to Peter's college expenses before either party would be required to contribute to such expenses.

Failure to Agree on a Modified Visitation Schedule Is Not a "Default” for Purposes of Attorneys Fee Provision

In Matter of Allegretti v Fitzpatrick, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2279571 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division held that the Family Court did not err in denying her motion for an award of an attorney's fee in connection with her petition to modify the visitation provisions set forth in a stipulation that was incorporated but not merged into the parties' judgment of divorce. The stipulation provided, among other things, that the parties were to "re-evaluate" the established visitation arrangements when their child began school. The stipulation also provided that in the event that either party defaulted with respect to their obligations thereunder, that party would be responsible for paying the attorney's fee incurred by the other party in an enforcement proceeding. The Family Court correctly concluded that the parties' failure to agree on a modified visitation schedule once their child began school did not constitute a "default" under the terms of the stipulation. Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother's motion for an award of an attorney's fee.