Recent Blog Posts in August 2008 |
| August 23, 2008 |
| Family Court Act 812 Now Everybody Should Worry |
| Posted By Brian D. Perskin |
 |
Family Court Act 812 (1) (c) was amended to include in the list of persons who the court has jurisdiction to grant an order of protection, persons formerly married to one another, "regardless of whether they still reside in the same household" and persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity. Subdivision (e) was added to Family Court Act 812 include in the list of persons who the court has jurisdiction to grant an order of protection, "persons who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time". For purposes of subdivision (e), neither a casual acquaintance nor ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts shall be deemed to constitute an "intimate relationship". Factors the court may consider in determining whether a relationship is an "intimate relationship" include but are not limited to: 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. Laws of 2008,, Ch 325, § 10, effective July 21, 2008). [Criminal Procedure Law 530.11 (1) (c) was amended in the same manner and an identical subdivision (e) was added. See Laws of 2008, Ch 325, § 11, effective July 21, 2008
It is important to hire a lawyer who stays up to date on the latest developments in the law. For further information about The Law Offices of Brian D. Perskin please
click here.
|
|
| Continue reading "Family Court Act 812 Now Everybody Should Worry" » |
|
Permalink  |
| |
| August 23, 2008 |
| Do Not Forget Your Credit |
| Posted By Brian D. Perskin |
|
Recently the the Appellate Division held that payment of premarital debt with marital funds should be credited as an asset of the marriage. This case is extremely important. If graduate school loans for medical, dental or law school were paid during the marriage, or your spouse's student loans for college were repaid, you are entitled to a credit. Read the following case and be enlightened: In Mahoney-Buntzman v Buntzman, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2008 WL 2066586 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) Supreme Court, among other things, fixed the wife's her distributive award at $2,467,151.43, awarded her 35% of the value of certain shares of stock and stock options issued to the defendant by his employer, and awarded her durational maintenance of $2,500 a month for 15 months.
It is important to hire a lawyer who stays up to date on the latest developments in the law. For further information about The Law Offices of Brian D. Perskin please
click here.
|
|
| Continue reading "Do Not Forget Your Credit" » |
|
| Permalink |
| |
| August 23, 2008 |
| Credit Counts Again |
| Posted By Brian D. Perskin |
|
Although the following case comes out of the fourth department, many married individuals pay off Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York. Craig J. MIRAND, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lisa M. MIRAND, Defendant-Appellant. July 11, 2008 James P. Renda, Buffalo, for Defendant-Appellant. Rosenthal, Siegel & Muenkel, LLP, Buffalo (Barbara A. Piazza of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent. MARTOCHE, J.P., SMITH, CENTRA, LUNN, AND PINE, JJ. MEMORANDUM: On appeal from a judgment in this action for divorce and ancillary relief, defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in awarding plaintiff sole custody of the parties' child and directing defendant to pay child support. We reject that contention. Great deference is accorded to the court's custody determination where, as here, that determination is based upon the court's assessment of the credibility and character of the parties (see Wideman v. Wideman, 38 AD3d 1318, 1319;Matter of Vincent A.B. v. Karen T., 30 AD3d 1100, 1101-1102,lv denied7 NY3d 711;Matter of Nunnery v. Nunnery, 275 A.D.2d 986, 987). We conclude that the court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed (see Matter of Pinkerton v. Pensyl, 305 A.D.2d 1113;Matter of Thayer v. Ennis, 292 A.D.2d 824).
It is important to hire a lawyer who stays up to date on the latest developments in the law. For further information about The Law Offices of Brian D. Perskin please
click here.
|
|
| Continue reading "Credit Counts Again" » |
|
| Permalink |
| |