In last month's newsletter, we looked at two recent cases in which New York courts determined that non-biological/non-adoptive parents could or could not seek ongoing relationships with their former romantic partners' children. The question that arises when looking at these two outcomes is, in which situations will a "virtual parent" be treated as a legal parent?
On Aug. 10, the American Bar Association's governing body voted to adopt a policy calling for the elimination of all state, territorial and tribal laws restricting civil marriage for same-sex partners. The recommendation that the ABA throw its weight behind the initiative was proposed by a number of entities, including both the New York State and New York City Bar Associations. This is just one of the many new developments in the evolution of the gay marriage debate.
The four Judicial Departments have now adopted three disparate rules of law with regard to the proper procedural course required to obtain review of a child support provision contained in a stipulation of settlement or agreement, incorporated by reference into a judgment or order, which is violative of DRL ' 240(1-b)(h) or FCA ' 413(1)(g).
Part One of this article described problems arising out of the substitution of experts, and discussed some recent case law. The conclusion herein presents some suggested ways of dealing with the situation.
Who's doing what; who's going where.
Cross-examination is a fundamental right and a key component of due process. Implicit in the right to cross-examine is the opportunity to do so effectively. Unfortunately, idiosyncratic practices by some judges with respect to disclosure of custody evaluation reports and the records underlying them often thwart the exercise of this most important right. Despite the official call for reform by the Matrimonial Commission, archaic limitations on access reminiscent of Star Chamber protocols continue to obstruct the disclosure essential to effective cross-examination.
At press time, the California Supreme Court was considering a case that could impose a duty to warn on the manufacturer of one product for hazards associated with other products that are manufactured and sold by third parties.
Is there a legal difference between an audio and video recording of someone, compared with a video recording of someone? Moreover, if the recording is not sent electronically, but stored at the location of the recorded individual, is it still a violation of the wiretapping statute?
Employers should revisit and review the language of any arbitration agreements in light of a Guideline Memorandum (GC Memo) issued by Ronald Meisburg four days before stepping down from his post as General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
