Features

It is often said that bad facts make bad law. A corollary to that principle may be that notorious clients make for problematic verdicts. Such was the case in <i>Bell v. Helmsley</i>, 2003 WL 1453108 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Cty. 3/4/03), a trial dominated by the ever-entertaining presence of the Queen of Mean, Leona Helmsley.

Recent rulings of importance to your practice.

Features

With a June 1 due date looming for a new list of eligible fiduciaries, lawyers interested in qualifying for the court-appointed positions must meet the new training requirements announced by Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman in March. Developing new training requirements was one of the recommendations of a blue-ribbon panel appointed by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye to examine the court's system for the appointment of fiduciaries to ensure there is no favoritism.

There appears to be no reason why the parties to a separation agreement cannot specifically provide in their agreement that a resumption of marital relations will not be deemed a reconciliation, and that the separation agreement will not be impaired or invalidated thereby unless a formal written document is executed by the parties acknowledging such reconciliation and affirmatively canceling the agreement. Indeed, such language is commonly found in separation agreements, and its obvious purpose is to avoid subsequent litigation in the event of a failed reconciliation attempt.

Features

Your spouse, your children and your beloved pets have lived together as a family for the last 10 years, but one of you has now filed for divorce. Who gets the kids? Who gets the wedding china? Who gets Fido? Obviously, every court in the country treats the custody of children differently than personal property. So where do pets fit in? Should companion animals be treated akin to children and custody/visitation determined by looking at the pets' best interest, or are companion animals no more than personal property to be distributed like pots and pans on divorce?

Finding a lack of authority on the issue of "double dipping" in child support awards, Justice Robert A. Ross of the Nassau County Supreme Court found in a case decided earlier this year that the public policy against "miscalculations" in distributive awards demanded that the amount the husband paid the wife for his enhanced earnings capacity could not be computed as part of his income in determining his child support payments.

Features

Recent rulings of importance to your practice.

Features

The latest rulings of importance to you and your practice.