Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Decisions of Interest
Visitation Ordered Resumed, with 'Make-Up' Days
A mother who unilaterally decided she would withhold her child from court-ordered visitation with the father was found in contempt, ordered to pay the father's attorney fees and required to allow the father to make up the visitation days lost due to the mother's refusal to allow visitation. Frank G. v. Carol G., V-7644-06/06A (Fam. Ct., Suffolk Cty., 11/2/06) (Simeone, J.).
Petitioner father sought to have the respondent mother found in contempt for failure to abide by the provisions in a stipulation of settlement. The father alleged the mother withheld their child from visitation with him in violation of the stipulation and judgment by pulling her out of school, sending her to a babysitter and other means. The court found questionable the mother's numerous excuses for keeping the child away from the father, including an allegation that the child's paternal grandfather abused the child. The court stated that even if it were to find the mother's claim credible, such explanations would constitute a mitigating factor, not a defense to a wilful failure to abide by a court order. Stated the court, 'While respondent attempts to justify her decision to withhold the child from visitation, she unilaterally did so without the proper Court scrutiny required when denying a parent the most inherent right to contact with his/her child.' The court held it would not order a change of custody, fine or imprisonment at this juncture, noting respondent should be mindful that further violations could lead to such punishments. It found respondent in contempt for her wilful failure to abide by the terms of the visitation in the judgment of divorce, ordering that petitioner be granted 'make-up' time for the visitations denied him by respondent, and granting his request for attorney's fees.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.