Finding a divorce lawyer in Nassau County can be pretty tough. There are many steps one must go through in order to find the perfect one. You want to find a divorce lawyer whom you are comfortable with and know that they have your best interests in mind. Simonetti & Associates was voted Best Divorce Attorney on Long Island in 2014 and 2015. If you are currently living in Nassau County, or around the area, Simonetti & Associates is your best answer for a divorce lawyer. Check here, they were voted Best of Long Island 2 years in a row!
Simonetti & Associates has been in practice for over 25 years, not only in just Nassau County, but all over the island. With your wallet and time in their hands, they are extremely considerate with what you are giving them. This law firm team in Nassau County makes themselves available virtually any time of the day and night for you. They know how important it is to be in constant contact with your lawyer so flexible hours are a necessity to them. You can expect phone calls being made after hours, as well.
It is extremely important to feel at ease with your divorce lawyer. If you feel that you are not experiencing such feelings, the transition over to Simonetti & Associates is a lot easier than it sounds. Whether you are living in Nassau County or not, Lou Simonetti and his law team will be more than happy to serve you. Even if the phone call to your current law attorney is discomforting to you, Simonetti & Associates will be more than willing to do it for you.
The Best Divorce Attorneys in Nassau County, Simonetti & Associates, offers cost efficient services. Such services include divorce, adoption, child custody, mediation, alimony and much more. Once you join the team over at Simonetti & Associates, you will see why they were voted two years in a row the best divorce lawyers on Long Island.
Check us out on Facebook and call us for any need you may have. We serve all those in need of divorce in Suffolk County and Nassau County.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Engagement Ring and Contemplation of Marriage
Long Island’s Best Divorce Lawyer said the issue in this case was whether a diamond ring was “given in contemplation of marriage, or was [it] given as a complete gift?” The Plaintiff contends he paid for the diamond ring with his own money and gave it to the Defendant as an engagement ring. The relationship between the parties ended following an incident of domestic violence and the Plaintiff sought the return of the ring.
A Nassau County Divorce Attorney said the Court discussed Civil Rights Law Section 80-b and its application by New York Courts. Section 80-b allows for the recovery of a gift if the gift is made in contemplation of marriage. The tradition of this principle is that the ring is the property of the male donor when an engagement is terminated. The Court stated that “even prior to the enactment of the anti-heart balm legislation, cases held that ‘the donee of the ring receives, at the time of the gift, only the right of possession. Firm ownership passes only upon the performance of marriage.’” However, where there is a “genuine dispute as to the circumstances under which the ring was given, a trial to determine fact is necessary.”
Following a fact finding hearing, the Court ultimately held that the Plaintiff “failed to sustain his burden by preponderance of the evidence that the ring was solely given to the Defendant in contemplation of marriage.” The only two witnesses to testify were the parties, and all that was entered into evidence was the business card of the jeweler and an invoice. The Court looked at the totality of the circumstances and determined the ring was given as a gift, not in contemplation of marriage. It looked at the following facts:
A Nassau County Divorce Attorney said the Court discussed Civil Rights Law Section 80-b and its application by New York Courts. Section 80-b allows for the recovery of a gift if the gift is made in contemplation of marriage. The tradition of this principle is that the ring is the property of the male donor when an engagement is terminated. The Court stated that “even prior to the enactment of the anti-heart balm legislation, cases held that ‘the donee of the ring receives, at the time of the gift, only the right of possession. Firm ownership passes only upon the performance of marriage.’” However, where there is a “genuine dispute as to the circumstances under which the ring was given, a trial to determine fact is necessary.”
Following a fact finding hearing, the Court ultimately held that the Plaintiff “failed to sustain his burden by preponderance of the evidence that the ring was solely given to the Defendant in contemplation of marriage.” The only two witnesses to testify were the parties, and all that was entered into evidence was the business card of the jeweler and an invoice. The Court looked at the totality of the circumstances and determined the ring was given as a gift, not in contemplation of marriage. It looked at the following facts:
- The Court credited the Defendant’s testimony that the ring was “for giving the Plaintiff a son and being a good mother;”
- the invoice made no mention of the ring as an engagement ring;
- the Plaintiff and Defendant referred to each other as husband and wife prior to the ring being given as a gift;
- a domestic partnership existed prior to the date the ring was given as a gift;
- the parties had a prior history of exchanging gifts with each other;
- the Defendant contributed $1,000 down and $4,500 from her tax return for the purchase of the ring; and
- there was no engagement announcement nor a wedding venue booked.
Long Island Divorce
Long Island’s Best Divorce Lawyer said this was the appeal of an order of the Family Court which awarded physical custody of the parties’ child to the Petitioner (hereafter the Father). The parties were the unmarried parents of a son. The parties separated and the Father commenced a custody proceeding. The Respondent Mother (hereafter the Mother) cross-petitioned shortly thereafter. Following a hearing of the Family Court, the Court granted joint legal custody to the parties and primary physical custody to the Father.
At the underlying hearing, the parties were the only witnesses to testify. A Nassau County Child Custody Attorney said the considerations the Family Court make when deciding a custody determination are “the parents’ past performance and relative fitness, their willingness to foster a positive relationship between the child and the other parent, as well as their ability to maintain a stable home environment and provide for the child’s overall well-being.” Looking at these considerations, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court.
Following the parties’ separation, the Mother moved five times and finally settled in Albany County which was 67 miles from the original residence in Fulton County. The Mother’s work schedule as a home health aide required shifts of considerable hours and the shifts were subject to change depending on the health of her patient. The Father resided in the same home for over 9 years and adjusted his work schedule “to be more regular and predictable, and to allow more time with his family.” His mother lived “next door” and other family members would provide day-care services for the child. The Family Court noted that the Father very much encouraged visitation and the development of the child’s relationship with the Mother. While the Mother testified that the Father “could see the child ‘if he wants to come and get him.” Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the Appellate Division affirmed the determination of the Family Court.
The attorneys at Simonetti & Associates have extensive experience conducting child custody hearings and work hard to present a strong case for their clients. Serving all your needs related to divorce in Suffolk County and Nassau County.
At the underlying hearing, the parties were the only witnesses to testify. A Nassau County Child Custody Attorney said the considerations the Family Court make when deciding a custody determination are “the parents’ past performance and relative fitness, their willingness to foster a positive relationship between the child and the other parent, as well as their ability to maintain a stable home environment and provide for the child’s overall well-being.” Looking at these considerations, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court.
Following the parties’ separation, the Mother moved five times and finally settled in Albany County which was 67 miles from the original residence in Fulton County. The Mother’s work schedule as a home health aide required shifts of considerable hours and the shifts were subject to change depending on the health of her patient. The Father resided in the same home for over 9 years and adjusted his work schedule “to be more regular and predictable, and to allow more time with his family.” His mother lived “next door” and other family members would provide day-care services for the child. The Family Court noted that the Father very much encouraged visitation and the development of the child’s relationship with the Mother. While the Mother testified that the Father “could see the child ‘if he wants to come and get him.” Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the Appellate Division affirmed the determination of the Family Court.
The attorneys at Simonetti & Associates have extensive experience conducting child custody hearings and work hard to present a strong case for their clients. Serving all your needs related to divorce in Suffolk County and Nassau County.
Child Support and Nonpayment
Long Island’s Best Divorce Lawyer said this was the appeal of an order of the Family Court. The Family Court had determined the Father willfully violated a prior order of child support and as such, the Father was directed to pay a money judgment in favor of the Mother.
A Nassau County Divorce Attorney said that in support proceedings where there is evidence of a father’s failure to pay child support pursuant to an order, this typically constitutes as prima facie evidence that the violation was willful. In such an instance the burden shifts to the father to provide the court with “competent, credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments.” However, in this case, the Appellate Division found the father had not sustained this burden. The Father asserted that he was unemployed and therefore unable to pay the child support. Despite this assertion the Father could not overcome the Mother’s prima facie showing because he lacked any credible evidence that he was actively seeking employment.
The experienced family law attorneys at Simonetti & Associates can assist you with issues you may have concerning child support. We serve all those in need of divorce in Suffolk County and Nassau County. We are pleased to be voted Best Divorce Attorney on Long Island. Call us today!
A Nassau County Divorce Attorney said that in support proceedings where there is evidence of a father’s failure to pay child support pursuant to an order, this typically constitutes as prima facie evidence that the violation was willful. In such an instance the burden shifts to the father to provide the court with “competent, credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments.” However, in this case, the Appellate Division found the father had not sustained this burden. The Father asserted that he was unemployed and therefore unable to pay the child support. Despite this assertion the Father could not overcome the Mother’s prima facie showing because he lacked any credible evidence that he was actively seeking employment.
The experienced family law attorneys at Simonetti & Associates can assist you with issues you may have concerning child support. We serve all those in need of divorce in Suffolk County and Nassau County. We are pleased to be voted Best Divorce Attorney on Long Island. Call us today!
Paternity Proceeding
Long Island’s Best Divorce Lawyer said this was an appeal of an order of the Family Court granting Respondent’s application to dismiss the paternity proceeding. The subject child was born to the Respondent Mother (hereafter the mother) while she was married to the Petitioner. The Respondent 2 (hereafter Suitt) commenced the underlying paternity proceeding alleging that he was the father.
A Nassau County Child Custody Attorney the Petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence at the paternity hearing. However, the Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and also failed to submit to a genetic marker test. The Family Court found the Petitioner in default, found the presumption of legitimacy rebutted, and declared Suit to be the subject child’s father. The appeal followed.
The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court to dismiss the paternity proceeding. The Petitioner did not make any allegations of extraordinary circumstances which might have allowed him to obtain custody. The Appellate Division also found that the “prior determination as to paternity preclude[d] [the Petitioner] from claiming that he is a parent.”
If the above facts apply to your situation then seek out the advice of the experience Family Law Attorneys at Simonetti & Associates. We serve all those in need of divorce in Suffolk County and Nassau County.
A Nassau County Child Custody Attorney the Petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence at the paternity hearing. However, the Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and also failed to submit to a genetic marker test. The Family Court found the Petitioner in default, found the presumption of legitimacy rebutted, and declared Suit to be the subject child’s father. The appeal followed.
The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court to dismiss the paternity proceeding. The Petitioner did not make any allegations of extraordinary circumstances which might have allowed him to obtain custody. The Appellate Division also found that the “prior determination as to paternity preclude[d] [the Petitioner] from claiming that he is a parent.”
If the above facts apply to your situation then seek out the advice of the experience Family Law Attorneys at Simonetti & Associates. We serve all those in need of divorce in Suffolk County and Nassau County.
Education Costs and Child Support
Long Island’s Best Divorce Lawyer said this was the appeal of an order of the Family Court following a child support proceeding. The Family Court granted Respondent Mother’s (hereafter the Mother) petition for modification of the child support agreement. The underlying facts are as follows.
The Mother and Appellant Father (hereafter the Father) entered into an opting out agreement which obligated the Father to pay child support to the Mother in the amount of $485 per week. However, the agreement did not address each of the parties’ share of the cost of the children’s education. The parties’ child was experiencing difficulties in the public schools and the Mother wished to enroll the child in a private Catholic school. The Father consented, “on the condition that the mother takes full responsibility for payment of the child’s tuition,” which was memorialized in a written, notarized statement. At the end of the school year, the Mother filed the underlying modification petition seeking an order which would “require the Father to pay his pro rata share of the child’s educational expenses.”
A Nassau County Child Support Attorney said that following a hearing, the Family Court found the Father to be obligated to pay 71% of the child’s private school tuition beginning the following school year. The appeal followed. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision despite the written agreement of the parties. As stated, the “Family Court ha[d] no jurisdiction to enforce…[the] independent contract.” Because the divorce judgment was silent as to educational expenses, “a court may direct a party to pay such expenses where appropriate and as justice requires, ‘having regard for the circumstances of the case of the case and of the respective parties and in the best interest of the child.”
In making its decision to affirm the Appellate Division noted “that the child’s emotional state significantly improved once he began attending the private school.” The child suffered from several health issues, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and auditory processing disorder. The Appellate Division also noted a journal entry written by the child which read, “I was a kid who was bullied, depressed, and underestimated. But I found a light in the darkness,…I met awesome friends and the nicest teachers I ever encountered. Thank God I found [my new school].” These finds, along with a decrease in the dosage of the child’s anxiety medication following his enrollment at the private school led to the decision that it was in the best interest of the child for the Family Court’s decision to be affirmed.
During a divorce it can be difficult to identify what the circumstances may be like years down the road. The experienced Divorce Attorneys at Simonetti & Associates take pride in assisting their clients anticipate these circumstances and ensuring they are addressed.
The Mother and Appellant Father (hereafter the Father) entered into an opting out agreement which obligated the Father to pay child support to the Mother in the amount of $485 per week. However, the agreement did not address each of the parties’ share of the cost of the children’s education. The parties’ child was experiencing difficulties in the public schools and the Mother wished to enroll the child in a private Catholic school. The Father consented, “on the condition that the mother takes full responsibility for payment of the child’s tuition,” which was memorialized in a written, notarized statement. At the end of the school year, the Mother filed the underlying modification petition seeking an order which would “require the Father to pay his pro rata share of the child’s educational expenses.”
A Nassau County Child Support Attorney said that following a hearing, the Family Court found the Father to be obligated to pay 71% of the child’s private school tuition beginning the following school year. The appeal followed. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision despite the written agreement of the parties. As stated, the “Family Court ha[d] no jurisdiction to enforce…[the] independent contract.” Because the divorce judgment was silent as to educational expenses, “a court may direct a party to pay such expenses where appropriate and as justice requires, ‘having regard for the circumstances of the case of the case and of the respective parties and in the best interest of the child.”
In making its decision to affirm the Appellate Division noted “that the child’s emotional state significantly improved once he began attending the private school.” The child suffered from several health issues, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and auditory processing disorder. The Appellate Division also noted a journal entry written by the child which read, “I was a kid who was bullied, depressed, and underestimated. But I found a light in the darkness,…I met awesome friends and the nicest teachers I ever encountered. Thank God I found [my new school].” These finds, along with a decrease in the dosage of the child’s anxiety medication following his enrollment at the private school led to the decision that it was in the best interest of the child for the Family Court’s decision to be affirmed.
During a divorce it can be difficult to identify what the circumstances may be like years down the road. The experienced Divorce Attorneys at Simonetti & Associates take pride in assisting their clients anticipate these circumstances and ensuring they are addressed.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Changing Circumstances and Child Custody
Long Island’s Best Divorce Lawyer said this was an appeal of an order granting Petitioner Mother’s (hereafter Mother) application to modify a prior order of custody. In this prior order, sole custody of the children was granted to the Respondent Father (hereafter Father) with visitation to the Mother. The Appellate Division subsequently affirmed the Family Court’s modification which “granted the parties joint legal custody of the children, with primary residential custody awarded to the mother and specified parenting time to the father.”
The Mother alleged that the existence of substance abuse and domestic violence in the Father’s home had escalated to the point where police involvement was required. The Mother also alleged that Father’s wife (hereafter the stepmother) had driven the children while “high.” The Appellate Division found the Father’s home had “descended into chaos” as the result of alcohol and substance abuse, while the Mother’s household became a safe and stable environment. A report of the Delaware County Department of Social Services (hereafter DSS) noted that the Mother no longer abused alcohol. The report noted that the Mother was remarried and relocated to the children’s current school district.
The standard for the modification of a custody order is whether there has been a sufficient change in circumstances that “reflect a real need for change in order to insure the continued best interests of the children.” The various factors a court looks at when determining whether modification is warranted include “the parents’ ability to provide a stable home environment for the children, the children’s wishes, the parents’ past performance, relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for the children’s overall well-being, and the willingness of each parent to foster a relationship with the parent.” A Nassau County Family Law Attorney said that in this case the Mother made strides to improve her ability to raise the children. She had remarried and was able to provide a safe, stable and nurturing home, and had “become more engaged with the children’s educational and medical needs.”
In the event you wish to modify your custody order seek out the services of the experienced family law attorneys at Simonetti & Associates.
We have been voted Best Divorce Lawyer in Nassau County and Best Divorce Lawyer in Suffolk County by the Best of Long Island Program. Thank you to the readers of the Long Island Press and our fans for helping us reach this status as the Best Divorce Attorney on Long Island two years in a row.
Are you thinking about getting a divorce? Call us today for a free consultation (877) 385-2560
The Mother alleged that the existence of substance abuse and domestic violence in the Father’s home had escalated to the point where police involvement was required. The Mother also alleged that Father’s wife (hereafter the stepmother) had driven the children while “high.” The Appellate Division found the Father’s home had “descended into chaos” as the result of alcohol and substance abuse, while the Mother’s household became a safe and stable environment. A report of the Delaware County Department of Social Services (hereafter DSS) noted that the Mother no longer abused alcohol. The report noted that the Mother was remarried and relocated to the children’s current school district.
The standard for the modification of a custody order is whether there has been a sufficient change in circumstances that “reflect a real need for change in order to insure the continued best interests of the children.” The various factors a court looks at when determining whether modification is warranted include “the parents’ ability to provide a stable home environment for the children, the children’s wishes, the parents’ past performance, relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for the children’s overall well-being, and the willingness of each parent to foster a relationship with the parent.” A Nassau County Family Law Attorney said that in this case the Mother made strides to improve her ability to raise the children. She had remarried and was able to provide a safe, stable and nurturing home, and had “become more engaged with the children’s educational and medical needs.”
In the event you wish to modify your custody order seek out the services of the experienced family law attorneys at Simonetti & Associates.
We have been voted Best Divorce Lawyer in Nassau County and Best Divorce Lawyer in Suffolk County by the Best of Long Island Program. Thank you to the readers of the Long Island Press and our fans for helping us reach this status as the Best Divorce Attorney on Long Island two years in a row.
Are you thinking about getting a divorce? Call us today for a free consultation (877) 385-2560
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)