Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Grandparent Custody Image

Grandparent Custody

Jerome A. Wisselman & John Virdone

In last month's newsletter, we explored the state of the law on grandparent custody of children prior to the amendments to FCA ' 651(b) and DRL ' 72(2)(a) (b) (c), which codified jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions filed by grandparents for custody of their grandchildren. The amendments, which went into effect on Jan. 5, 2004, appeared to change the law to make it easier for grandparents to gain or keep custody of grandchildren. The leading case law previous to the amendments could be found in <i>Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys</i>, 40 NY 2d 543, 387 NYS 2d 821, 356 NE 2d 277 (1976), in which the Court of Appeals held that a parent has a superior right to custody over a nonparent unless the nonparent meets the burden of proving "extraordinary circumstances." Once such extraordinary circumstances are shown, a court may then move on to consider custody in light of the best interests of the children. After the amendments went into effect, the question became, did those amendments substantially change the law for grandparents seeking custody?

Enhanced Earnings Capacity Image

Enhanced Earnings Capacity

Alton L. Abramowitz

Two recent cases in our office have highlighted the legal and procedural conundrums occasioned by parties residing in different states at the time divorce proceedings are commenced, where one of the spouses earned a medical degree and obtained medical licenses and board certifications (ie, enhanced earning capacity) during the course of the marriage. As most readers of this publication are surely aware, New York is the only major jurisdiction in our nation to value enhanced earning capacity for purposes of equitable distribution. Thus, whether the case is litigated in New York or in a different state can have a marked effect on the outcome of the financial aspects of the case, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.

Decisions of Interest Image

Decisions of Interest

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Features

In the Spotlight: Being Gun-Shy ' Difficulties Surrounding the Trigger of Rights of First Refusal and First Offer Image

In the Spotlight: Being Gun-Shy ' Difficulties Surrounding the Trigger of Rights of First Refusal and First Offer

Sheldon A. Halpern

The right of first refusal ('ROFR') and its close cousin, the right of first offer ('ROFO'), collectively sometimes called pre-emptive rights, are devices used to afford the grantee a degree of flexibility in potentially buying or leasing the subject property at a future time. These rights can be considerably more troublesome, especially to grantors, than may be immediately apparent to many real estate deal makers. Many who have been 'burned' recognize that the problems include: 1) financial loss and delay in completing a transaction that arise from dampened interest in the subject property on the part of third-party potential bidders, and 2) disputes (sometimes resulting in litigation) that arise from issues surrounding the triggering, execution, and preservation of the right. This article focuses on the second problem, with special emphasis on disputes that revolve around the triggering of the pre-emptive rights. It also suggests certain drafting implications that follow from the analysis.

Features

Introduction Image

Introduction

Janice G. Inman

In divorce situations, nothing -- not even the question of who gets the house -- can compare to the importance of the question of how custody of the children will be worked out. Some lucky families will be able to work together toward the optimum solution for all concerned, with a willingness to be flexible that will keep the arrangement working smoothly for years. Other parents, however, will be at odds, due to real concerns for the children and the parents' relationship with them, or even from sheer animosity toward one another. In this special issue focusing on custody, we look at the some things all parents in custody battles should consider as well as some things that will affect only a smaller percentage of parents.

Features

Parent Testimony in Custody Disputes Image

Parent Testimony in Custody Disputes

Elaine Lewis

Over the years, I have helped prepare many parents to testify in custody matters. In that time, I have discovered crucial areas of preparation that will help produce a competent and confident witness. Parents need guidance on: 1) attitude; 2) behavior; and 3) basic custody topics they should be prepared to discuss. Most lawyers manage to include parts of these three areas when preparing their clients for trial, but frequently, the approach is scattered. The instructions are fine as far as they go, but there are holes in the preparation that, if stumbled into, will certainly trip up and unnerve a witness. School your client on the following elements of testimony and the chances of a favorable outcome will be greatly increased.

Features

International Parental Child Abduction Image

International Parental Child Abduction

Jeremy D. Morley

When resolving custody issues between international parents, counsel should address the issue of international travel and should use their best efforts to prevent international parental child abduction. In my practice, I assist attorneys and clients around the world to prevent children from being abducted overseas and to seek their return if they have been abducted. Preventing child abduction is obviously far better than trying to recover abducted children from countries that do not recognize an obligation to reunite families. Unfortunately, clients often seek help too late, lawyers often do not recognize the severity of the situation or do not know what steps to take, and judges often fall back on concepts such as international comity to justify a refusal to issue the necessary orders.

Features

How to Represent the Non-Biological Parent in a Custody Fight Image

How to Represent the Non-Biological Parent in a Custody Fight

Kenneth David Burrows

Representing the non-biological parent in a custody dispute today is an uphill struggle. There are only three classes of people under New York statutory law who may seek custody of or visitation with children: parents, siblings, and grandparents (DRL '' 70-72). All others have no standing. And under current case law, biological strangers are legal strangers.

July issue in PDF format Image

July issue in PDF format

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

&#133;

Features

Is It a Mark Or Not? Strategies for Overcoming Refusals Based on Genericness, Ornamentation and Functionality Image

Is It a Mark Or Not? Strategies for Overcoming Refusals Based on Genericness, Ornamentation and Functionality

Christopher P. Bussert & Christine P. James

While most trademark practitioners are prepared to handle an initial refusal to register a mark from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") based on likelihood of confusion or descriptiveness grounds, many are considerably less comfortable responding to refusals in which the PTO challenges whether a particular mark even qualifies for trademark status. Such refusals are often based on genericness, ornamentation, or functionality grounds. Strategies for overcoming such refusals are discussed in detail below.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • The 'Sophisticated Insured' Defense
    A majority of courts consider the <i>contra proferentem</i> doctrine to be a pillar of insurance law. The doctrine requires ambiguous terms in an insurance policy to be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage for the insured. A prominent rationale behind the doctrine is that insurance policies are usually standard-form contracts drafted entirely by insurers.
    Read More ›
  • Abandoned and Unused Cables: A Hidden Liability Under the 2002 National Electric Code
    In an effort to minimize the release of toxic gasses from cables in the event of fire, the 2002 version of the National Electric Code ("NEC"), promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, sets forth new guidelines requiring that abandoned cables must be removed from buildings unless they are located in metal raceways or tagged "For Future Use." While the NEC is not, in itself, binding law, most jurisdictions in the United States adopt the NEC by reference in their state or local building and fire codes. Thus, noncompliance with the recent NEC guidelines will likely mean that a building is in violation of a building or fire code. If so, the building owner may also be in breach of agreements with tenants and lenders and may be jeopardizing its fire insurance coverage. Even in jurisdictions where the 2002 NEC has not been adopted, it may be argued that the guidelines represent the standard of reasonable care and could result in tort liability for the landlord if toxic gasses from abandoned cables are emitted in a fire. With these potential liabilities in mind, this article discusses: 1) how to address the abandoned wires and cables currently located within the risers, ceilings and other areas of properties, and 2) additional considerations in the placement and removal of telecommunications cables going forward.
    Read More ›