"child custody" "child support" New York Family Law"

 

 

 

    [HOME]

                  New York Divorce and Family Law  

      nysdivorce.com   

The definitive site on the web for New York Divorce and Family Law.

 

Home

Search

Site Map

ARTICLES  BY SUBJECT

Adoption

Agreements

Alimony, Maintenance and Spousal Support

Child Abuse

Child Abduction

Child Custody and Parental Alienation

Child Support

Child Visitation

Common Law Marriage

Domestic Violence

Degrees and Licenses

Engagement Gifts

Enforcement

Grandparent Visitation and Non-Parent Visitation

Grounds For Divorce

International Child Abduction

Legal Fee Awards and Awards For Expenses

Litigation and Procedure

Marital Property

Property Distribution

Questions About Taxes

Retirement Benefits

Separate Property

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

Home

Search

Site Map

News Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home

Search

Site Map

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York Divorce and Family Law, the definitive site about divorce, child support and custody.

 

 

First time visitors to this site should know that it is arranged so that you must scroll down to view the contents of each page.
To easily
find what you are looking for scroll down to our Google Custom Search Engine, or use the Search link on the side of this page, as well as the Site Map, which lists everything you can find on this page.  

 

Welcome to New York Divorce and Family Law

"child support" "child custody" "new York Family Law"

Domestic litigation is a part of American life. Almost everyone has been directly or indirectly involved in divorce, custody, or domestic violence proceedings. This site has been designed to make the lawyer more knowledgeable about New York Divorce and Family law, as well as International Child Abduction Law.  

 

 

Joel R. Brandes, President Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc. 

 

New York Divorce and Family Law is  owned and published by Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc.,  a Florida Corporation, located at 2881 NE 33rd Court, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306.  The principals of the Corporation are Joel R. Brandes and Elizabeth Brandes.

Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc. is not a law firm, and does not give legal advice.  We publish Bits and Bytes™, an electronic newsletter, for New York Divorce and Family Law Attorneys. Joel R. Brandes and Elizabeth Brandes, the owners and operators of Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc., are not lawyers.
 


Bits and Bytes is written by Joel R. Brandes, the author of Law and the Family New York, Second Edition Revised, and Law and the Family New York Forms (Thomson Reuters Westlaw).

Court Attorneys and Judges may obtain a free subscription to Bits and Bytes, our electronic newsletter published for court attorneys and judges, as a public service,  which reports on important new decisions and laws.  Our electronic newsletter will be sent to you by email twice a month, to keep you up to date on important developments in New York Divorce and Family Law. To subscribe click on this link to fill out a subscription form or send an email containing your name, office address, telephone number and email address to subscribe@nysdivorce.com. Your information will be kept confidential in accordance with our privacy policy.  

Attorneys may obtain a free subscription to Bits and Bytes by sending an email containing your name, office address, telephone number and email address to subscribe@nysdivorce.com.    


Scroll Down for Cases of the Week and News


Library of All Cases decided under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 


    New and Recent Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Cases - Updated May 20, 2015

    Reported Federal and New York State Hague Convention Cases are listed in a separate Alphabetical  table of cases with the case name and citation, with comprehensive summaries of each individual case.  

    Reported Federal Hague Convention Cases and New York State Hague Convention cases are organized by name, citation, subject matter and country, with comprehensive summaries of each individual case.                              

    Unreported Federal Cases decided under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction are listed in a separate Alphabetical table of cases. They are organized by name, citation, subject matter and country, and have either comprehensive summaries or slip copies of each opinion.    

    Summary of the Basic Rules for the Granting of a Petition for Return of a Wrongfully Removed Child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

      


Joel R. Brandes, the President of Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc. is the author of  Law and The Family New York, 2d (9 volumes) (Thomson-West), and Law and the Family New York Forms  (5 volumes) (Thomson Reuters Westlaw). 

These sets can be purchased directly from Thomson Reuters Westlaw at 1-800-544-3008. For more information, click on the links below the volumes pictured below to go to Thomson Reuters Westlaw.   

Law and the Family New York Forms 2d, by Joel R. Brandes, is now available from Thomson Reuters Westlaw with the 2014 updates. The 2013 and 2014 updates, by Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes, have made substantial revisions to the set which has been expanded to 5 volumes.

 


         Law and The Family New York, 2d (New York Practice Library)Law and The Family New York, 2d (New York Practice Library)Law and The Family New York, 2d (New York Practice Library)Law and The Family New York, 2d (New York Practice Library)Law and The Family New York, 2d (New York Practice Library)

 Law and The Family New York, 2d (New York Practice Library, 9 Volumes) By Joel R. Brandes. (Updated November 2013 by Joel R. Brandes, Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes)

Description: This set is both a treatise and a procedural guide. The usual family law issues are covered such as Formation of the Family Unit, Divorce, Judicial Separation, and Annulments. It presents such vital practical considerations as counsel fees to prosecute or defend an appeal. The text analyzes statutes, discusses cases, and includes authors' notes which present hints, practice pointers, and pitfalls to avoid. It also features a complete discussion of appellate practice and offers step-by-step guidance on how to handle an appeal in each of the state's judicial departments. Research aids annotate the text.   

   Law and The Family New York Forms, 2d (New York Practice Library)

 Law and The Family New York Forms, 2d (New York Practice Library, 5 Volumes) By Joel R. Brandes. (Updated July 2014 by Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes)

Description. This set provides you with practitioner-tested forms for a wide variety of family law matters. It includes forms relating to the creation of the marriage relationship, the attorney-client relationship, matrimonial agreements, and matrimonial litigation. Specific topics covered include antenuptial agreements, separation agreements, modification agreements, and matters relating to infants and incompetents, and service of process.

          Law and the Family New York 2d is written with the assistance of Bari Corbin Brandes and Evan B. Brandes, both of the New York Bar. The authors write the annual supplements to Law and the Family New York 2d.   The 2014 update to Law and the Family New York Forms 2d is written by Bari Corbin Brandes and Evan B. Brandes,

          Bari Corbin Brandes maintains her office for the practice of law in Laurel Hollow, New York. 

          Evan B. Brandes is a member of the New York and Massachusetts Bars and a Solicitor in New South Wales, Australia. He is with Steiner Legal in Rozelle, New South Wales, Australia, focusing on parenting and property issues under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).  He can be reached at Steiner Legal by clicking on this link.   

          Notice: The information on this site pertains to New York law and is offered as a public service. It is not intended to give legal advice about a specific legal problem. Due to the importance of the individual facts of every case, the information on this site may not necessarily be applicable to any particular case. Changes in the law could at any time make parts of this web site obsolete. The information on this web site was not necessarily written by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal advice and this publication is not intended to give legal advice about a specific legal problem, nor is it a substitute for the advice of an attorney. This information is provided with the understanding that if legal advice is required the services of a competent attorney should be sought.


Use the Google Custom Search Engine to Search Our Site

 

 


Cases of The Week and News  

New and Recent Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Cases - Click here 

 

U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Same-sex May Not Be Deprived of Right to Marry

In Obergefell et Al. V. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et Al., 576 US ____(2015) the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court held that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question, was overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases were held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples.

2015 Child Support Standards Chart released March 6, 2015

According to the Child Support Standards Chart, [LDSS 4515 (3/15)] released March 6, 2015, prepared by New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Division of Child Support Enforcement, the 2015 poverty income guideline amount for a single person as reported by the United States Department of Health and Human Services is $11,770 and the 2015 self-support reserve is $15,890.

View and Download the 2015 Child Support Standards Chart 

Combined Parental Income Amount Adjusted to $141,000.

As of January 31, 2014 the combined parental income amount is $141,000. It is adjusted every two years (effective January 31st) based on the average annual percent changes to the federal Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers. The Child Support Standards Chart is released each year on or before April 1. The income tables are used to determine the annual child support obligation amount pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 567 of the Laws of 1989.

Court of Appeals Holds Appeal from a Contested Order of Protection Issued by Family Court, Based upon a Finding That the Subject Individual Has Committed a Family Offense, Is Not Mooted Solely by the Expiration of the Order.


In Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A., --- N.E.3d ----, 2015 WL 566677 (N.Y.), 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01300 the Court of Appeals held that an appeal from a contested order of protection issued by Family Court, based upon a finding that the subject individual has committed a family offense, is not mooted solely by the expiration of the order.

Petitioner sought an order adjudging respondent guilty of the charged offenses, as well as an order of protection against him pursuant to Family Court Act § 842. At the hearing, both sides called witnesses to testify to the relevant events, and respondent vigorously opposed the entry of an order of protection or any other adverse adjudication. In an oral decision rendered on February 4, 2011, the court found that respondent was guilty of a family offense, concluding that he had committed acts constituting harassment in the second degree. That same day, the court entered a written two-year order of protection against respondent. The written order stated that a family offense petition had been filed in the case, listed the date of the petition and noted that the order was being issued after a hearing at which respondent had been present. The order directed respondent to stay away from petitioner's home and to refrain from committing assault, harassment, stalking and certain other offenses against her. (The written did not declare that respondent was guilty of a family offense.)

Respondent appealed, but while the appeal was pending, the order of protection expired. The Appellate Division unanimously dismissed the appeal as moot, citing the expiration of the order (Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A., 110 AD3d 486, 486 [1st Dept 2013] ). The Court of Appeals reversed. It observed that 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. The ability of an appellate decision to directly and immediately impact the parties' rights and interests is among the most important aspects of the mootness analysis, for otherwise the analysis might turn on inchoate or speculative matters, making mootness an unwieldy doctrine of a thousand "what ifs." On the other hand, even where the resolution of an appeal may not immediately relieve a party from a currently ongoing court-ordered penalty or obligation to pay a judgment, the appeal is not moot if an appellate decision will eliminate readily ascertainable and legally significant enduring consequences that befall a party as a result of
the order which the party seeks to appeal. In this case, the expiration of the order of protection did not moot the appeal because the order still imposed significant enduring consequences upon respondent, who might receive relief from those consequences upon a favorable appellate decision. Because the order of protection on its face strongly suggested that respondent committed a family offense, the court in a future criminal case or Family Court proceeding would likely rely on the order to enhance a sentence or adverse civil adjudication against respondent. Although the order did not declare respondent guilty of a family offense in so many words, the order noted that it was issued after a hearing in a family offense proceeding, and it expressly barred respondent from victimizing petitioner by committing a variety of crimes nearly identical to those charged in the family offense petition. Thus, a court examining the order may readily discern that Family Court found respondent guilty of committing a family offense against petitioner and issued an order of protection to prevent him from continuing to offend against her. Armed with that information, the court in a future case may increase the severity of any applicable criminal sentence or civil judgment against respondent. In the face of the substantial probability that the order of protection would prompt severely deleterious future legal rulings against respondent, an appellate decision in his favor would directly vindicate his interest in avoiding that consequence of the order. The Court found that the the order of protection had other potential legal consequences that render it susceptible to appellate review. Beyond its legal consequences, the order of protection placed a severe stigma on respondent, and he can escape that stigma by prevailing on appeal Rubenstein. The order essentially labeled respondent a family offender. Given the totality of the enduring legal and reputational consequences of the contested order of protection, respondent's appeal from that order was not moot.

Respondent urged the Court to hold that an appeal from any expired order of protection, other than one entered upon stipulation, is not moot. The Court expressed no view on the correctness of that proposed holding because it was unnecessary to resolve the case. The order was revered and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.

 

Second Department Holds That it Is Only Appropriate for an Attorney for a Child to Form an Opinion as to What Would Be in the Child's Best Interest, after Gathering Evidence and Making a Complete Investigation.

In Matter of Brown v Simon,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2014 WL 7392499 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the parties entered into an agreement to share joint custody of the child, with the mother to have residential custody, which was embodied in an order entered on consent of the parties. Shortly after the agreement was entered into, the child's day care provider reported to the father that the child was not allowing herself to be cleaned when her diaper was being changed, and her resistance had gotten worse. Although an examination of the child by her pediatrician revealed no physical evidence of sexual abuse, the day care provider reported her concerns to the Office of Child Protective Services (CPS). The father and mother each filed a petition seeking sole custody of the child. Before a hearing on the petitions was held, the attorney for the child, based on the out-of-court statements of the day care provider, made an application for the father to be awarded temporary custody of the child. The Family Court granted that application. The Appellate Division pointed out that such an award was improper, as it was based on the disputed hearsay allegations ( Matter of Swinson v. Brewington, 84 AD3d 1251).

The Appellate Division held that during the hearing on the petitions, the Family Court erred in permitting the father to testify that the child told him that the mother's other daughter "did it." The father's testimony was intended to show that the mother's other daughter might have sexually abused the subject child. The statement was inadmissible hearsay, and did not qualify as either prompt outcry evidence, or as a spontaneous declaration. The admission of this hearsay statement could not be deemed to be harmless, as this hearsay statement was the only evidence presented to support the allegations that the child had been sexually assaulted and that the sexual assault was committed by the child's older sibling. Both CPS and the Administration for Children's Services investigated the allegations and concluded that the allegations were unfounded, and an expert in the area of child abuse concluded that there was no evidence that the child had been physically or sexually abused.

The Appellate Division also held that Family Court also erred in overruling the mother's objection to the testimony of her other daughter's treating physician about his treatment of that child on the ground that the Privacy Rule standard of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ( HIPAA) for disclosure of her other daughter's medical information was not met (45 CFR 164.512 [e][1][i], [ii] ). The mother's other daughter was not a party to the proceeding, and permitting her treating physician to testify in violation of HIPAA directly impaired the interest protected by the HIPAA Privacy Rule of keeping one's own medical records private. As such, the Family Court should have sustained the mother's objection to this testimony, This error could not be deemed harmless, as the physician's testimony was used by the father and the attorney for the subject child to portray the mother's other daughter as seriously disturbed.

Significantly, the Second Department held that an attorney for the child should not have a particular position or decision in mind at the outset of the case before the gathering of evidence (citing Matter of Carballeira v. Shumway, 273 A.D.2d 753, 756 where the Third Department said that: "A Law Guardian should not have a particular position or decision in mind at the outset of the case before the gathering of evidence.") It is only appropriate for an attorney for a child to form an opinion as to what would be in the child's best interest, after such inquiry. Here, it was inappropriate for the attorney for the child to have advocated for a temporary change in custody without having conducted a complete investigation. The attorney for the child acknowledged that his application was based solely on his discussion with the father and the child's day care provider, which was located near the father's residence, and that he did not speak to the mother or the child's other day care provider closer to the mother's residence.

It reversed the order appealed, remitted the matter to the Family Court for a de novo hearing and directed the Family Court to appoint a new attorney for the child.



Omission or Redaction of Confidential Personal Information

The Uniform Civil Rules of the Supreme and County Courts were amended to require the omission or redaction of Confidential Personal Information from papers filed with the court. See 22 NYCRR 202.5(e), relating to the omission or redaction of confidential personal information, effective January 1, 2015. Compliance with this rule is voluntary from January 1 through February 28, 2015, and mandatory thereafter. See 2014 New York Court Order (C.O. 00290), NY Order 14-0029. The rules do not apply to a matrimonial action. 22 NYCRR 202.5(e)(1). In addition, the rules do not apply in a proceeding in surrogate's court, or a proceeding pursuant to article 81 of the mental hygiene law, or as otherwise provided by rule or law or court order.

The Civil Practice Law and Rules defines the term "matrimonial action" to include actions for a separation, for an annulment or dissolution of a marriage, for a divorce, for a declaration of the nullity of a void marriage, for a declaration of the validity or nullity of a foreign judgment of divorce and for a declaration of the validity or nullity of a marriage. The definition of “matrimonial action” in the civil practice law and rules does not include an action to set aside or declare void a prenuptial agreement, separation agreement or postnuptial agreement, an action to declare the validity of such an agreement, nor an action for a declaratory judgment with regards to, specific enforcement or breach of such an agreement. Nor does it include an action to declare the legitimacy of a child commenced in the Supreme Court, a visitation proceeding commenced pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72, or an action for child support. Thus, parties in such actions are required to comply with this rule.

The parties are required to omit or redact confidential personal information (“CPI”) in papers submitted to the court for filing as defined in the rules Confidential personal information ("CPI") means: the taxpayer identification number of an individual or an entity, including a social security number, an employer identification number, and an individual taxpayer identification number, except the last four digits thereof; the date of an individual's birth, except the year thereof; the full name of an individual known to be a minor, except the minor's initials; and. a financial account number, including a credit and/or debit card number, a bank account number, an investment account number, and/or an insurance account number, except the last four digits or letters thereof. 22 NYCRR 202.5(e)(1).
 

Divorce - Grounds - Domestic Relations Law § 170 (7) - Two Appellate Divisions Hold that Statement under Oath That the Marriage Was Irretrievably Broken for a Period of Six Months Was Sufficient to Establish Cause of Action for Divorce.

In Hoffer-Adou v. Adou, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2014 WL 5471501 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.) the Appellate Division affirmed an order which sustained the validity of the parties separation agreement. It also held that contrary to the husband's contention, the wife was entitled to a judgment of divorce under the no-fault provision of DRL § 170(7), since her statement under oath that the marriage was irretrievably broken for a period of six months was sufficient to establish her cause of action for divorce as a matter of law (citing Townes v. Coker, 35 Misc.3d 543, 547 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2012] ). Supreme Court's granting of the divorce did not contradict DRL § 170(7)'s requirement that "[n]o 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 the judgment of divorce." The parties' separation agreement resolved the issues of child custody and support. Their subsequent commencement in the Family Court of proceedings concerning these issues did not render the court without authority to grant the divorce, since non-compliance with/or enforcement of, the separation agreement is not an element of Domestic Relations Law §170(7).

In Trbovich v Trbovich,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2014 WL 6497983 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.) the Appellate Division affirmed an order which denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment seeking a divorce pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170(7). It agreed with plaintiff that the relationship has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months opposing spouse in a no-fault divorce action pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170(7) is not entitled to litigate the other spouse's sworn statement (citing Palermo v. Palermo, 35 Misc.3d 1211[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 52506[U], affd for reasons stated 100 AD3d 1453; see e.g. Rinzler v. Rinzler, 97 AD3d 215, 218; A.C. v. D.R., 32 Misc.3d 293, 306), and indicated that to the extent that its decision in Tuper v. Tuper (98 AD3d 55, 59 n) suggested otherwise, it declined to follow it. Nevertheless, plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment under Domestic Relations Law § 170(7) at this juncture of the litigation because the ancillary issues had not been resolved by the parties or determined by the court. [One judge dissented]

 

Court of Appeals Holds that Marriage Where husband half-brother of wife's mother is not incestuous

In Nguyen v Holder, --- N.E.3d ----, 2014 WL 5431014 (N.Y.), 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07290 following certification of a question by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and acceptance of the question by the Court of Appeals pursuant to section 500.27 of this Court's Rules of Practice, the Court of Appeals held that a marriage where a husband is the half-brother of the wife's mother is not void as incestuous under Domestic Relations Law § 5(3).

 

Second Department Adopts Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine to Dismiss Child Support Appeal By Mother.

In Allain v Allain, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2014 WL 5350479 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal, and in an opinion by Judge Roman, held that it was proper in the context of this child support proceeding to apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, which permits a court, under certain circumstances, to dismiss an appeal where the party seeking relief is a fugitive while the matter is pending.

 

ICARA

The International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 USC §§11601 - 11611 was editorially reclassified as sections 9001-9011 of Title 22. It can now be found in 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9011.

 

CPLR 2106

CPLR 2106 which previously allowed unsworn affirmations only by attorneys, physicians, osteopaths or dentists, was amended, effective January 1, 2015, to allow New York courts to consider unsworn affirmations by any person, when that person is physically located outside the geographic boundaries of the United States, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The affirmation must be in substantially the following form: "I affirm this ... day of ......, ...., under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that I am physically located outside the geographic boundaries of the United States, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law. (Signature) See Laws of 2014, Ch 380.

CPLR 3122-a

The Civil Practice Law and Rules was amended to provide that the certification authorized by CPLR 3122-a may be used as to business records produced by non-parties whether or not pursuant to a subpoena so long as the custodian or other qualified witness attests to the facts set forth in CPLR 3122-a, (1), (2) and (4) of subdivision (a) of this rule. Formerly CPLR 3122-a applied only to business records produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum under CPLR 3120. CPLR 3122-a was amended to add subdivision (d) allowing its certification procedures to apply to all business records produced by non-parties whether or not pursuant to subpoena. According to the legislative memorandum in support of the amendment, any party may object to the procedure set forth in CPLR 3122-a after receiving notice from the party intending to use that procedure to introduce business records at trial. If the court sustains the objection, the introducing party will need to bring in a witness at trial to testify to lay the foundation for admission of the documents. CPLR 3122-a does not supplant the procedure set forth in CPLR 2306 as to the introduction of hospital and municipal records at trial. A party seeking to introduce those records may still rely upon the procedure set forth in section 2306 or, alternatively, may follow the rule CPLR 3122-a procedures. CPLR 3122-a (d) added by Laws of 2014, Ch 314, § 2, effective immediately.

CPLR 3113 (1)

CPLR 3113 (1) (c) was amended to provide that a non-party deponent's counsel may participate in the deposition and make objections on behalf of his or her client in the same manner as counsel for a party. Laws of 2014, Ch 379, effective September 23, 2014

Family Court Act §451 amended


          Family Court Act §451(1) , which was amended, effective December 22, 2014,  provides that an application to modify an order of child support must be accompanied by "an affidavit and other evidentiary material sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the relief requested" in order to entitle the petitioner to a hearing on any material issues of fact.  No hearing is required if an affidavit has not been submitted even if material issues are present in the case.  The amendment removed the requirement of filing an affidavit with the petition by removing word “modify” from subdivision 1 and adding  a new subdivision 2, which provides: “ A proceeding to modify an order of support shall  be  commenced  by    the filing of a petition which shall allege facts sufficient to meet one  or more of the grounds enumerated in subdivision three of this section. Former subdivision  2 has been renumbered subdivision 3. See Laws of 2014, Ch 373, effective December 22, 2014.

Temporary Maintenance Guidelines Cap Adjusted to $543,000

As of January 31, 2014, the Income Cap under the Temporary Maintenance Guidelines has been adjusted from $524,000 to $543,000. TheTemporary Maintenance Worksheet and Calculator may be found at Temporary Maintenance Worksheet and Calculator.

 

Court Rules Amended

 The Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and the County Court, were amended by adding a new section 202.10, relating to appearances at conferences, to provide that any party may request to appear at a conference by telephonic or other electronic means. It appears that “other electronic means” refers to video conference or computer video services such as “skype”. The rule encourages the court to grant the request where “feasible and appropriate”.
 

 

Cases of the Week and News is Continued on News Page - Click here for News Page

Scroll Down for Court Rules, New York Divorce and Family Laws, Forms, Rules, Court Calendars, Decisions and Information (last updated August 10, 2011), Q & A about New York Marriage, Divorce, Separation and Custody,  Library of All Federal and New York Cases decided under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and Articles Published in the New York Family Law Monthly


Click to Visit our New York Divorce and Family Law Blog .

Click to Visit "A Child is Missing: The International Child Abduction Blog" - Our blog devoted to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Hague Convention cases are reported on our blog before they appear on this website.  

Both of our blogs have been added to the American Bar Association Blog Directory



New York Divorce and Family Law is listed as one of the Best sites by Lexis One's Legal Resources Website Directory.  Click here to visit Lexis One


 

Listen Live to CBS  or Wins New York Radio 

NY Metro Traffic and Web Cams

New York Airports, Path, Bridges and Tunnel Information

Flight View (Track flights in and out of New York)

Use the Google Custom Search Engine to search our site

 



Go to Top of Page

Court Rules

For Emergency applications in Supreme Court civil cases outside of regular court hours, call: (800) 430-8457, or email: emergency@nycourts.gov (See http://www.courts.state.ny.us/admin/oca.shtml Last Accessed May 8, 2009)

A "Protocol for Emergency Applications", designed to facilitate applications for Emergency Applications outside of regular court hours in the evening and on weekends and holidays when the courthouse is closed, was issued by the Chief Administrative judge. It establishes the central phone number and e-mail address listed above for attorneys to use in the event of an emergency. According to the protocol, staff members from the Division of Technology will pass on the requests to the administrative judge or a designated back-up, who will arrange to have a judge hear the application.

The Appellate Divisions in the First and Second Departments have rules with regard to the number of words and size of typefaces used in briefs. Click here for a simple explanation of those rules. 

Go to the Court Rules page

Go to Top of Page


New York Divorce and Family Laws, Forms, Rules, Court Calendars, Decisions and Information


Adoption Information

American Bar Association, Family Law Quarterly, "Family Law In the Fifty States" chart summarizing Grounds for Divorce and Residency Requirements. Winter 2011

Bar Association Divorce and Family Law Resources

Bits and Bytes ™ Timetable For Service of Motion Papers may be downloaded here.

Child Support Standards Chart for New York (April 2011)

Child Abduction and International Child Abduction Information

Child Abuse Prevention Information

Child Custody Information

Child Support Information

Children's Issues Information

Family Law Uniform Laws

Federal Law Divorce Resources (Pension and Social Security)

Library of New York Maintenance and Equitable Distributions Cases from July 19, 1980 to 2010

Locate a  Divorce Lawyer on the IAML AND AAML websites

New York Courts Help (Court Facts, Law, Courts and Lawyers)

New York Court Websites with Opinions, Decisions and Orders

New York Divorce and Family Law Statutes, Court Rules, and New Legislation

New York Lawyers Rules of Professional Conduct Applicable to Conduct On and After April 1, 2009 

New York Lawyers "Rules of Professional Conduct for Family Law Attorneys," written by Joel R. Brandes, discusses the rules that particularly effect New York Matrimonial and Family law attorneys. (Click here to download the Article )       

New York Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility Applicable to Conduct Prior to April 1, 2009

New York State Courts eCourts Divorce Resources

New York Divorce County Specific Divorce Information from courts that provide county-specific online divorce information:

New York City:

      Bronx County:
Information on contested and uncontested matrimonial (divorce) actions in Bronx County. Links available to FAQs, forms, flowcharts, checklists, and procedures.

Kings County (Brooklyn):
Information on contested and uncontested matrimonial (divorce) actions in Kings County (Brooklyn). Provides links to
FAQs, local and statewide forms, and rules.

New York County (Manhattan):
Information on contested and uncontested matrimonial (divorce) actions. Information also available on local, reduced-fee
mediation program for cases already in court.

Queens County:
Information on contested and uncontested matrimonial actions (divorce) in Queens County. Link also available to local, reduced-fee
mediation program for cases already in court.

Richmond County (Staten Island):
Provides contact information for clerk’s office.

 

Eighth Judicial District — includes: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie (Buffalo), Genesee, Niagara, Orleans & Wyoming Counties (Provides links to forms for contested and uncontested divorces, Help Center information, Children Come First program, mediation and parenting coordination. Residents of Erie County (includes Buffalo) may also want to learn about the Expedited Matrimonial Part.)

 

Nassau County  Information on contested and uncontested divorce in Nassau County. Links to checklists, including one for common filing mistakes in uncontested cases, a time-line for contested divorce cases, information on alternate service (when you cannot locate your spouse), and more. Nassau is also home to an innovative Children Come First Program, where trained professionals help people to resolve parenting disputes early on in the divorce process.

 

Onondaga County — includes: Syracuse
Provides contact information for clerk’s office, and for the Dedicated Matrimonial Part in Syracuse. The 5th Judicial District also provides a
list of neutral evaluators and mediators for people with cases in court.

Westchester County
Links to
Westchester-specific forms, Westchester rules, and to a mediation program for cases already in court.

New York Matrimonial Timeline For Contested Actions

New York Supreme Court and Family Court Official Forms ( Uncontested Divorce Forms and Table of Filing Fees)  All of the Official Supreme Court Forms and Family Court forms for use in child custody, support, paternity, juvenile delinquency, persons in need of supervision and child welfare proceedings can be obtained.)

New York State Unified Court System Future Court Appearance System (including Supreme Court Calendars, Instructions, and Online Decisions )  

New York  Uniform Court System Web site (with link to ecourts Case Information Services to search decisions, case information and free etrack case tracking services)

New York Family Court Attorney Check in

New York Supreme Court Library at Buffalo - Great Big List of Legal Web Sites

New York Valuation Aids

The Lighter Side of the Law

US Supreme Court Databases

Go to Top of Page


Q & A about New York Marriage, Divorce, Separation and Custody


Annulment: Is annulment different than divorce?  How do I get one?

Agreements: Are Pre-Nuptial Agreements Enforceable?

Agreements: What must be in a settlement agreement to be enforceable?

Child Custody: Will I get sole custody?  What is joint custody?

Child Support: How much support will I receive or have to pay?

Collaborative Divorce: What is it?

Common Law Marriage: What States Allow Common Law Marriages today? 

Divorce: What are the Grounds For Divorce in New York ?

Enforcement of Maintenance & Child Support : How do I enforce my award?

Equitable Distribution: What property am I entitled to receive?

Equitable Distribution Definitions: What is Equitable Distribution?

Maintenance : How much will I get or pay  and for how long?

Maintenance Awards: Who is entitled to Medical, Dental and Life Insurance?

Matrimonial Actions: What is the Procedure?

Matrimonial Costs and Attorneys Fees: What will it cost me?

Mediation: Are there standards of conduct for mediators?

Modification: Can I get maintenance or child support increased or reduced?

Motion Practice: What is a motion and what is the procedure?

Insurance: What kind of insurance can the court award me?

Insurance: How do I enforce my right as irrevocable beneficiary?

Insurance: What provisions for medical insurance must be in child support orders?

Insurance: What is a Qualified Medical Child Support Order?

Passports: How do I find out if one was issued for my child?

Pre-Divorce Rights: What rights do I have as a spouse?

Protective Orders: How do I get one?

Separation and Pre-marital Agreements: What should they contain?

Social Security: Frequently Asked Questions    

Table of Witness Subpoena Fees     

Uncontested Divorce: What is an Uncontested Divorce? How do I get one?


Go to Top of Page

Articles of Interest to Attorneys by our Editors Published in The New York Family Law Monthly

February 2005, The Fugitive Disentitlement Remedy, Applying the Remedy in Custody and Child Support Cases, By Joel R. Brandes

March 2005, Fair Trials and the Recusal of Judges, By Joel R. Brandes and Bari Brandes Corbin

April 2005, Law Guardian or Guardian Ad Litem?, By Joel R. Brandes and Bari Brandes Corbin

May 2005, Interest on a Distributive Award, By Bari Brandes Corbin

July 2005, Identifying Expert Witnesses - The Penalties Of Nondisclosure, By Bari Brandes Corbin

September 2005, Custody Cases and Forensic Experts, By Bari Brandes Corbin

July 2006, Divorce and the Military, Part One of a Three Part Article, by Evan B. Brandes  

August 2006, Divorce and the Military, Part Two of a Three Part Article, by Evan B. Brandes  

September 2006, Divorce and the Military, Part Three of a Three Part Article, by Evan B. Brandes  

March 2007, Unfair Marital Agreements, Part One of  a Two Part Article,  by Bari Brandes Corbin  

April  2007, Unfair Marital Agreements, Part One of  a Two Part Article,  by Bari Brandes Corbin  

December 2007, Interpreting and Applying the Hague Convention, Part One of a Three Part Article, By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes             

January 2008, Interpreting and Applying the Hague Convention, Rights of Custody Defined, Part Two of a Three Part Article, By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes              

February  2008, Interpreting and Applying the Hague Convention, Defenses to Return, Part Three of a Three Part Article, By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes    

June 2008, Hearsay Evidence in Custody Cases, Part One of a Three Part Article, By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes  

July 2008, Hearsay Evidence in Custody Cases, Part Two of a Three Part Article, By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes

August 2008, Hearsay Evidence in Custody Cases, Part Three of a Three Part Article, By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes

June 2009, Important Rules of Evidence for Family Law Attorneys, Part One of a Three-Part Article, By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes

July 2009, Evidence and Family Practice, Part Two of a Three-Part Article, By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes

August 2009, The Evidence  Rules All Family Law Attorneys Should Master, Part Three of a Three-Part Article, By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes

October, 2009, Listening in: the Use of Audio Recordings in Family Court Proceedings, By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes

November 2010, Custody Awards and Zones of Decision-Making By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes, Part One of a Two-Part Article

December 2010, Custody Awards and Zones of Decision-Making By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes, Part Two of a Two-Part Article

April 2011, The New ‘Irretrievable Breakdown’ Ground for Divorce By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes

October 2011, Considering Public Policy When Drafting Separation Agreements By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes, Part One of a Two-Part Article

November 2011, Public Policy Considerations in Drafting Separation Agreements By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes, Part Two of a Two-Part Article

June 2012, Filing Objections to the Final Order of a Support Magistrate  By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan Brandes

July 2013,

Spoilation of Evidence in Family Matters,
By Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes

 

Articles of Interest By our Editors Published in The New York Law Journal

Federal Criminal Enforcement of Child Support Obligations, by Hon. George B. Daniels and Joel R. Brandes, New York Law Journal, December 9, 2011

Enforcement of Unacknowledged Marital Agreements, by  Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes,   New York Law Journal, October 15, 2012

 

 


Now You Know

Experts are people who know a great deal about very little and who go along learning more and more abut less and less until they know practically everything about nothing. Lawyers, on the other hand are people who know very little about many things and keep learning less and less about more and more until they know practically nothing about everything.

Judges are people who start out knowing everything about everything but end up knowing nothing about everything because of their constant association with experts and lawyers.

From: "The Howls of Justice: Comedy’s Day in Court" © 1988 By Angie Papadakis and Harry T. Sharer. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Go to Top of Page


New York Divorce and Family Law Site Map

"child support" "child custody" "New York Family Law"

Remembering 9/11

New York Divorce and Family Law

Owned and published by Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc.

2881 NE 33rd Court, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida  33306.

Telephone (954) 564 - 9883.

 

      Terms of Use         Contact Us         Privacy Policy

Notice: The information on this site pertains to New York law and is offered as a public service. It is not intended to give legal advice about a specific legal problem. Due to the importance of the individual facts of every case, the information on this site may not necessarily be applicable to any particular case. Changes in the law could at any time make parts of this web site obsolete. The information on this web site was not necessarily written by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal advice and this publication is not intended to give legal advice about a specific legal problem, nor is it a substitute for the advice of an attorney. This information is provided with the understanding that if legal advice is required the services of a competent attorney should be sought.

Our web site has many links to web sites of other organizations, including, but not limited to court systems, publishers of legal information, agencies, educational institutions, profit making companies and non-profit associations. While we offer these electronic links for your convenience in accessing New York Divorce and Family Law related information, please be aware that when you exit our web site, the privacy policy stated on our web site may not be the same as that on other web sites. In addition, we cannot attest to the accuracy of the information provided by linked sites. Linking to a web site does not constitute an endorsement by us of the information presented on the linked site or the products that may be sold on the linked site.

Potential clients of any law firm listed on this site are advised to read the Statement of Clients Rights, which New York matrimonial attorneys are required to provide to them at the initial consultation, as well as the Statement of Clients Rights and Responsibilities.

(This web site may be considered Attorney Advertising by New York Court rules)

Copyright © 2015, Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc. All rights reserved.

This website was last updated on June 28, 2015

 

Go to Top of Page