Hassan v. Barakat, 171 A.D.3d 1371 (3rd Dept. 2019)

Apr 18, 2019

OUTCOME: Successfully overturned trial court decision and obtained physical custody of client's children.

The trial court erred in awarding primary physical custody to the wife because there was no evidence indicating that the husband committed sexual crimes against his children from a previous marriage, t ... he husband did not actually violate an order of protection, the wife admitted that she did not fully comply with the temporary custody order and did not always take the children to the husband for his scheduled parenting time, and the husband expressed a willingness to promote a relationship between the children and the wife; the children's best interests was served by an award of primary physical custody to the husband and joint legal custody remained appropriate.

Williams v. Williams, 99 A.D.3d 1094 (3rd Dept. 2012)

Oct 18, 2012

OUTCOME: Successfully defended trial court's decision awarding client monthly maintenance, awarded her 50% of the marital portion of the husband's pension and retirement plans, and directed the husband to pay the wife's counsel fees.

The appellate court found, inter alia, that it was improbable that the wife--who was 57 years old at the time of trial--would ever acquire job skills permitting her to return to the comfortable upper-m ... iddle-class lifestyle that the parties enjoyed during the marriage. Therefore, the maintenance award was proper. Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5)(d), the trial court properly directed payment from each of the husband's respective pension and retirement accounts. The husband was not entitled to a credit for funds that he withdrew from the retirement account while the divorce was pending as he did not establish that those amounts were used for the wife's expenses. Given the disparity in the parties' financial circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the entirety of the parties' student loan debt to the husband. Finally, the trial court did not err in directing the husband to pay the wife's counsel fees without an evidentiary hearing since he neither challenged the reasonableness of the charges nor requested a hearing on that issue.

Kumar v. American Transit Ins. Co., 49 A.D.3d 1353 (4th Dept. 2008)

Mar 21, 2008

OUTCOME: