Domestic Violence

Published on: April 19, 2012

Plaintiff Sues Police for not Enforcing Order of Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 13, 1992, a woman pulled up to an area in Nassau County where she saw police officers working a car accident. She got out of her car and screamed for them to help her. She advised them that her husband was in her car with a knife and he was threatening to hurt her. She advised that she had an active order of protection against him. She showed the officers her order and asked them to help. The officers told her that they would take care of him after she left. However, a New York Criminal Lawyer said they failed to arrest her husband for the violation of the order of protection.

The next morning as she prepared to leave for work for the day, she exited her home. Her husband was hiding outside of the residence when she walked out. He attacked her with a machete causing serious bodily harm to her. She contends that if the police officers had done their duty and enforced the order of protection, she would not have been injured because her husband would have been in jail.

She filed a civil suit against the county where the officers worked for personal injury damages. The county maintained that they could only be partially responsible for the injuries that occurred to her because her husband was more culpable than they were. Under New York law, CPLR article 16, a joint tortfeasor’s liability for non-economic losses is proportional upon proof that it is 50% or less culpable for the personal injury. There are exemptions to this rule, domestic violence is not one of them. The court determined that in order to waive this rule, domestic violence would have to be added as one of the exemptions. The court just was not ready to create all new case law that would include domestic violence cases in the exemptions. Prior to this case being appealed, the victim had been awarded $1.5 million dollars by a jury. The County challenged the trial court’s ruling that barred article 16 exemptions from the case. The trial court had determined that there was a domestic violence exemption to article 16 and that apportionment did not apply because the case involved an intentional tort. The appellate division reversed the judgment holding that none of the exemptions applied. The appellate court overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial.

Published on: April 17, 2012

Husband and Wife Both Seek Custody of Children

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman and his partner both filed for child custody petition in Court. The woman was born and raised in Florida where she lived with her mother and father until her parents divorced. She continued to live with her father until she was 22 and got her own apartment. The woman’s partner was born in Puerto Rico and was raised in Bronx. He has been living in New York for the past 10 years. The parties met on line in 2002 and they actually met in person when the woman came with a friend in New York for vacation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in May 2004, the woman invited the man down to Florida for the weekend and their relationship became intimate. At some point during their relationship, the parties made the decision to have a child together.

In October 2004 the woman learned she was pregnant and that same month, the man took his two-week vacation and went to Florida to be with the woman. He brought his daughter with him and they discussed the possibility of him moving to Florida. While he was there, he looked for a job by posting his resume on a Web site and checking the local newspapers. The father got a couple of calls but when he went to be interviewed with the County school for a job as a locksmith, he was told that he was overqualified for he was making $17 an hour at his job in New York and they were offering only $10 an hour. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said that alhough he said he would start at any entry level, he was not offered the job.

At the end of 2004, the woman was terminated from her job as a general claims clerk in Florida for taking more time off than her allotted annual leave would cover. Although the father admitted they had plans to move, after she lost her job, he told her they would live better in New York since he had a stable job and stable home. The man’s mother would provide childcare, and he does not want anyone but family to care for their son. The woman never wanted to move to New York but agreed to do so because she felt that it would be only temporary until they have saved money for a house and move back to Florida. The woman admitted that her partner never gave her an exact time frame but she assumed that it would be within a few years.

Published on: April 16, 2012

Court Claims Jurisdiction in Domestic Violence Matter through IDV Courts

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was charged with the offense of harassment in the second degree. Subsequently, the court issued an order of protection directing the man to stay away from the complainant and refrain from harassing, intimidating, threatening her, or committing any acts of domestic violence. After that, a misdemeanor charge of criminal contempt in the second degree was commenced against the man alleging a violation of the order of protection. Consequently, the man initiated a matrimonial action against the complainant.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court having been assigned to the related matrimonial action, determined that it would promote the administration of justice to transfer to the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) part the charges pending against the man in the district court and by the order the district court, the matters were transferred to the IDV Part.

The man now moves for an order to dismiss the district court cases for lack of subject matter of authority. The man alleges that criminal procedure law mandates the dismissal of the cases transferred from the district court. The man’s motion is determined. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said the discussion of the man’s contentions begins with an assessment of the legal authority of the courts.

Published on: April 16, 2012

Court Determines if Evidence Submitted by Defendant is Inadmissable

by Stephen Bilkis

A husband moved an action against his wife’s lawsuit to take a statement to be offered in court on his behalf by issuance of a request letter. The wife opposes the application of motion.

It started when a wife alleges that she was a victim of domestic violence committed by his husband. However, the husband moves for a letter requesting for information to take the statement of the wife’s sister. The husband argues for his sister-in-law’s granted permission for the recorded telephone conversation between his wife and his sister-in-law at which time his wife made certain admissions. The husband asserts that the recorded conversation contains statement which is necessary for the trial on the issues of custody and domestic violence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the husband asserts that a letter is requested because the prospective witness, his wife’s sister, resides in another country and therefore is not within the jurisdiction of the court. The counsel further stated that the wife’s sister is physically unable to travel to testify at the time of trial because she is suffering from a blood clot in her lungs. Further, the counsel neither annexed an affidavit by a person with actual knowledge nor certified medical documentation supporting the counsel’s assertion.

Published on: April 15, 2012

Man with History of Domestic Violence Applies for Gun Permit

by Stephen Bilkis

A man applied to the license division of the police department for a premises pistol permit. As required by the application, the man answered numerous questions pertaining to his qualification. The questions include as to whether he had ever been arrested and was an order of protection ever issued against him. The man answered yes to the abovementioned questions. The man also submitted notarized statements describing the circumstances of his two arrests.

The man’s first arrest happened when he was in college. He states that he fraudulently applied for and received unemployment benefits. He pled guilty to petit larceny, paid full compensation and was awarded a certificate of relief from civil disabilities.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man’s second arrest occurred at a random traffic checkpoint. When the officers checked his license, the officer discovered that it was suspended in accordance to a family court child support enforcement unit order. The man states that it was an error because he had already appeared before in the family court judge and made all the payments. The man obtained the necessary documentation to verify his claim.

Published on: April 15, 2012

Court Says Evidence is Protected by Common Law Victim-Counselor Privledge

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman charged a man with criminal action of various felonies arising from alleged domestic violence. A non-profit corporation has moved to quash a subpoena issued by the District Attorney to provide the address and telephone number of the complainant of the criminal action. The non-profit corporation asserts that in accordance to the Social Services Law and the regulations promulgated under it, the non-profit corporation is prohibited from releasing to the District Attorney the actual address where the resident is being sheltered. In addition, it argues that the information sought is also shielded by a common-law victim-counselor privilege.

A New York Criminal Lawyer the motion to quash is denied. Section of the Social Services Law states that the street address of any residential program for victims of domestic violence applying for funding pursuant to this article shall be confidential and may be disclosed only to persons designated by rules and regulations of the department. At the same time, section of the State Code of Rules and Regulations provides for the confidentiality of facility addresses as each program must maintain a business mailing address separate and distinct from the actual address where residents are sheltered. When releasing the address of any resident, programs must release only the business address of the program and not the actual address where the resident is being sheltered.

On the other hand, section of the State Code of Rules and Regulations provides for access to confidential information pursuant to an order by a court of competent jurisdiction. The non-profit organization argues that the specific prohibition of the State Code of Rules and Regulation limits the broad disclosure permitted pursuant to a section of the said Code.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Defendant Claims Forum Shopping in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and a woman, never been married, have a 12 year old child. There have been 6 petitions previously filed between the parents, all in Rensselaer County Family Court (in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2010 and 2 in 2011). Two were withdrawn, three were settled and one is pending.

The mother has filed a custody petition in Albany County Family Court. The father has filed a motion requesting that the matter be transferred to Rensselaer County Family Court on the grounds of inconvenient forum and forum shopping.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that under the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), a discretionary change of venue motion would be controlled by section 510(3) and granted where the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change. The section is, for all practical purposes, identical in meaning to Family Court Act §174, which requires that a change of venue by supported by good cause.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Domestivc Violence Costs Correction Officer her Job

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman filed a petition to terminate the decision of the commissioner of the department of correction. The decision is to terminate her employment as a probationary correction officer and directing that she be reinstated with back-pay and benefits. After the trial on the issue, the court finds that the petition of the woman should be granted.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the testimony and evidence introduced at the trial and revealed that the woman was employed by the department of correction as a probationary correction officer. When she was terminated as the result of a complaint made to the department of investigation by a person identifying himself as a parole officer. The officer indicated that he was the parole officer assigned to a former inmate. The former inmate is the woman’s former boyfriend, who has been a history of domestic violence incidents with the woman.

The individual claiming to be the officer made a previous complaint about the woman to department of investigation. The complaint alleged that while visiting the inmate, the officer noticed the woman’s uniform hanging in the inmate’s apartment. In response, the department of correction initiated an investigation concerning the woman’s undue familiarity with the inmate, and her failure to report that she was living with the inmate when she applied for a position as a correction officer.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisiction on Domestic Violence Cases

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was charged with, inter alia, harassment in the second degree based on numerous harassing and threatening telephone calls he allegedly made to his former paramour, with whom he had two children.

On 18 January 2007, a misdemeanor complaint was filed charging the defendant with, inter alia, aggravated harassment in the second degree (three counts).

By order dated 31 January 2007, the action was transferred from the Criminal Court, Kings County, to the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Part of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The misdemeanor complaint was converted to an Information by the complainant’s attestation dated 7 February 2007. After a nonjury trial, the court convicted the defendant of three counts of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Interesting Case Shows the Evolution of Divorce Law

by Stephen Bilkis

It is amazing just how much domestic law and divorce law has changed over the past 50 years. Prior to 1967, a married couple who wanted to get divorced could only obtain a divorce on the grounds of adultery. If neither spouse committed adultery, the courts of the state would not allow the couple to divorce. In 1967, New York legislature added the additional grounds for divorce under mental cruelty. Section 170 of the Domestic Relations law was amended to state that a divorce may be maintained by a husband or a wife if they were dissolving the marriage on the grounds that they were suffering cruel and inhuman treatment at the hands of the other spouse. A New York Criminal Lawyer said this treatment would have to be so egregious that the conduct endangered the physical or mental well-being of the abused party and made it unsafe or improper for the couple to live together. These were also the grounds for any kind of legal separation.

In 1970, a case came before the courts of New York that dealt with a petition for a divorce. The couple was married in New York in 1957. The husband was 28 years old and the wife was 37. She had a 15-year-old son by a previous marriage. The couple had a daughter, who was ten years old at the time of the trial. The pair had a volatile relationship by any standards with four separations and three reconciliations between 1961 and 1967. Throughout their relationship, they only testified to one act of domestic violence. This incident was the cause for the first separation. In 1961, the husband was in the kitchen of the home with some friends. The daughter began to cry, and the husband told her to be quiet. The wife came in to the kitchen and struck him. She then told him to get out of the house. The husband filed for divorce in 1970 claiming mental anguish. The courts determined that even under the changes in law in 1967 that would allow a divorce for cruel and inhuman treatment, the arguments that this pair had were not serious enough to meet the minimal qualifications to get a divorce. The court stated that the responsibility for managing their differences was not the responsibility of the courts.

Rather, the court pointed out that it was the responsibility of the two married people to learn to get along with each other without relying on the courts to step in and solve their problems. The exact term was that the courts of justice have no cure for the ills that these people bring upon themselves. They must minister unto themselves to solve their differences. This is in stark contrast to the customs of today. Now a couple can divorce for any reason. There are no such stipulations that must be met in order for a divorce to be petitioned. A couple may still obtain a divorce under this type of situation, even if the other party does not want to get a divorce. This change in the law was enacted to protect the victims of domestic violence. An uncontested divorce action is possible without any kind of violence, adultery, or other misdeed.