May 17th, 2013
In case you have met with an accident and are suffering from injuries, for which somebody else is responsible, you have a personal injury claim at hand. In an ideal situation the person who is responsible for the accident should compensate you for the damages caused (damages here imply physical injury, damages to your car in case of a car accident etc). However, in most of the cases that does not happen. The insurance company representing the person, who has caused the damage, will try its best to push its profit margins by under compensating the injured. However if you want to ensure that you end up getting the rightful compensation then you should seek legal help. It will not really be possible for you to understand or to have a thorough knowledge of the vast scope of personal injury. Only a well trained, reputed lawyer will be able to guide you through the complicated legal process-starting right from the negotiation to presenting your case. However, you might not always have the sufficient funds to afford legal help. There are companies that will provide you a loan against personal injury case. However you have to consider a few things before you seek their help.
Please remember that a lawsuit loan will come with a high fees attached, as it goes without saying that the companies will not really be interested in putting their money at stake ( on your case) for low rates.
Usually the companies are only interested in cases that have merit, where the plaintiff is likely to win. Thus, they will be studying the relevant documents (here, your claim) very carefully. They will establish due contacts with your lawyer to go through the papers. They will require the copies of both your legal and medical papers.
What you should do
Please shop around a bit to know who the reliable lenders in the market are and check out the service fees offered by each of them. At times, you might even come across lenders who charge such high fees that you are left with nothing from the settlement, after paying your lawyer and these companies. Do check out if you have to pay extra fees for periodic contacts established between your attorney and the lending company.
If you have friends and acquaintances who have availed similar services, you can ask them to chip in with valuable suggestions.
Whatever is the situation, it would only be wise to take help of these loans to ensure that you are financially in a good position to fight your case. It might happen that you are not being able to work owing to the physical injuries on your body. This may take a toll on your earning and you might have to face difficulties to secure a fair settlement in the personal injury case. Thus learn more about these companies online, today and seek their help whenever you feel that is necessary. Keep the points, mentioned above, in mind. But do not stay under compensated.
Marie Nelson has been writing about the deep rooted socio-economic problems plaguing World Economy for quite a long time. She is equally well versed with a plethora of legal and financial aspects including personal injury cases, employment laws, loans etc. If you want to find out about loan online you can refer to some of her articles as well.
May 14th, 2013
If your home goes into foreclosure it will have a negative impact on your credit score. However, the nature and extent of the negative impact may be different than what you believe it to be. When a financial institution brings a foreclosure lawsuit related to a mortgage default, the institution will normally report to the credit agency there is a foreclosure or a home has been foreclosed upon. This information on your credit score will not necessarily impact on the outstanding balance it shows you owe on the mortgage. The credit report will most likely continue to show the entire outstanding balance of your mortgage being due and owing on your credit report. This negative credit material can stay on your credit report for seven years.
Sales Of Homes In Foreclosure
At the end of the foreclosure process, if the bank is a successful, your home will be sold. In the event the sale of your home at the foreclosure sale does not pay off the entire outstanding debt due in owing on your mortgage, the remaining balance may be shown on your credit score as a “deficiency “. The financial institution may be able to bring a proceeding to collect on this deficiency amount. If they do not take action to collect this deficiency they can report it to the Internal Revenue Service as a forgiven debt. This will cause you to receive a 1099 showing the deficiency as income to you in that tax year. This will cause you to pay income taxes on this deficiency debt!
Foreclosures On Second Mortgages
When the financial institution forecloses on a first mortgage, the second mortgage may continue to be maintained on your credit report by the credit reporting agency. The second mortgage will not show it was foreclosed on because it is a separate and distinct financial obligation.
Bankruptcy And Foreclosure
It may be necessary to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy to eliminate deficiency judgments related to first mortgages and the personal obligations on a second mortgage. To better understand the inferences and long-term impact on your credit score it is strongly suggested to contact either a bankruptcy lawyer or foreclosure lawyer.
May 8th, 2013
The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) is coming to the rescue of more than 3000 homeowners whose homes were damaged by Superstorm Sandy. Under a new program, the FHA is allowing these homeowners whose homes were damaged by Superstorm Sandy to apply for mortgage loan modifications. The purpose of this program is to help reduce the monthly mortgage payments of homeowners whose homes were damaged by Superstorm Sandy.
Mortgage Moratorium Ends
Initially, after Superstorm Sandy hit the northeast, there was a mortgage moratorium program established. That program is coming to an end. However, homeowners whose homes have never successfully been repaired are still entitled to the moratorium under this former program. At a news conference which took place at New York Senator Charles Schumer’s Manhattan office, United States Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan stated “this will give homeowners the breathing room and they need.” ”Many are still struggling and it is heartbreaking to know that people who lost their homes because of this natural disaster can now lose their homes from a man-made disaster: a foreclosure.”
A new loan program will now allow more than 1/4 million New Yorkers to obtain “stream lined loan modifications.” This program will apply to areas affected by Superstorm Sandy.
Additional measures to help families of damaged homes are being considered by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. New York Senator Charles Schumer is also urging private financial institutions to develop programs of a similar nature to assist homeowners whose homes were damaged by Superstorm Sandy recover from this difficult situation. Senator Schumer specifically stated “it is time for the banks to step up and assist homeowners who have been doing the right thing all along.”
About The Author
Elliot S. Schlissel is the former President of the Commercial Lawyers Conference of New York. He has more than three decades of legal experience litigating foreclosure related cases, dealing with predatory lending issues and foreclosure related bankruptcy problems. Elliot and is dedicated staff of attorneys are available seven days a week to talk to prospective clients. Call for a free consultation at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 and 718-350-2802.
April 18th, 2013
A man had parked his car illegally. A Police officer walked up to the car. He asked the man if he should be aware of anything in the car. The man consented to a search of the car. The police officer found a handgun in the car.
The issue presented to an Appellate Court in upstate New York was “[did the police officer have] reasonable suspicion to make the inquiry?” The Appeals court found there was none. The Court said the police must have “founded suspicion” of a crime before asking a motorist if he or she has a firearm. As a result, the Appeals Court threw out the search for the handgun. The handgun could not be used as evidence of the illegal possession of the weapon.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes a standard police must meet before intruding into the personal space of Americans. The Fourth Amendment specifically protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The court’s decision specifically stated while the police officer had an “objective credible reason” for approaching the illegally parked car he was not justified in making an inquiry about the contents of the vehicle without a “founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.”
About the Author
Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. and his associates provide criminal defense legal services for individuals being investigated and charged with crimes throughout the metropolitan New York area. Our law firm is available seven days a week to assist our clients. Call for a free consultation.
April 16th, 2013
Governor Cuomo wants to utilize four hundred million dollars of federal housing money to fund a buyout program of homes destroyed by Superstorm Sandy. Governor Cuomo had stated these homeowners are trapped because no one will buy their home since it was destroyed and it was in a flood zone. He wants the state to pay one hundred percent (100%) of the pre-storm value of these homes. Governor Cuomo seeks to target the hardest hit areas with his buyout plan.
Qualifying for the Buyout
For a homeowner to qualify for a buyout, the home must have sustained more than fifty percent (50%) damage. This damage must have reduced the home’s value by more than half of its pre-market value. In addition, the governor is working with both Nassau and Suffolk counties to provide funds for homeowners to raise the elevation of their homes and to rebuild their homes stronger so they will withstand future storms. Governor Cuomo stated, AI would rather spend more money and build back a home the right way, with the right design and the right technology, than build it back in two years and in four years and in six years.
Governor Cuomo was confident since New York State has been awarded thirty billion dollars by the Federal government there would be sufficient funds to cover these buyouts.
About the Author
Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. has been representing homeowners throughout the metropolitan New York area for more than twenty five (25) years regarding real estate issues, issues concerning fraudulent foreclosures, loan modifications, and improper bank practices and foreclosures. His law firm seeks to keep homeowners facing foreclosure in their homes.
March 19th, 2013
New York State Supreme Court Justice, John C. Bivona, recently ruled the estranged spouse of Marley Bishop, the daughter of United States Congressman, Timothy Bishop, did not have any parental rights to visitation because the parties’ son was born before New York passed the Same Sex Marriage Act in 2011.
The Judge ruled Mercedes Counihan did not have legal standing to seek custody or visitation of the parties’ son, who was two years of age. Ms. Counihan’s partner, Marley Bishop, had carried the baby after she had been artificially inseminated. The Judge’s ruling was that the non-biological parent did not have standing to raise the issue of access to the child or assert parenting rights.
Same Sex Marriage In Connecticut in 2009
Bishop and Counihan were married in the State of Connecticut in the year 2009. Both women executed documents related to the in-vitro process. Counihan was present at the birth of the child. Counihan claimed the child referred to her a “Mommy.” Judge Bivona found “neither consent by the birth mother to co-parent the child with the plaintiff nor approval to permit to adoption of the child” existed in the case.
The attorney for Counihan claimed the ruling was “outrageous.” She stated the Courts decision did not take into consideration the fact Counihan appears on the little boy’s birth certificate.
In a statement made after the court’s decision, Counihan said “this is about parents and a little boy and that boy is my son, too. He should not be taken from me and I should not be erased from his life because a marriage fell apart.” She stated her attorney was appealing the court’s decision.
About The Author
February 15th, 2013
The state of juvenile facilities in New York is dismal. In 2012, there was a threefold increase in the assaults on inmates in juvenile facilities. The New York State Commissions on Corrections found more than 335 assaults took place in four juvenile holding facilities in 2012. This averaged out to approximately 1 ½ assaults for each and every child held in these juvenile facilities. The median age of the children held in juvenile facilities is approximately 16 ½ years old.
Commission chairman, Thomas Beilein, in his report wrote “[t]here has been an alarming increase in the total number of violent incidents taking place at OCFS secure centers in just the first half of this year.”
The Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) operates the Brookwood Facility, Columbia Girls and Goshen Secure facilities which are in the Hudson Valley and the MacCormick Facility located near Ithaca, New York.
To explain the large number of assaults on youths in state run facilities, Jennifer Givner, a spokeswoman for OCFS, stated “[t]his is a difficult population. These are kids who have done very serious crimes often violent crimes.” In addition they have significant mental health problems and drug abuse problems, stated Barry Kristberg, a consultant to the State of New York.
Juveniles are placed in facilities for both re-education to get them to perform to societal norms and for punishment. They should be safe in the facilities they are placed in. Juvenile facilities should not be gladiator schools where already tough, difficult youths are taught to be even more violent.
About The Author
Elliot S. Schlissel is an attorney practicing criminal defense law throughout the metropolitan New York area. He has extensive experience representing juveniles and adults who are being criminally investigated, who have been placed under arrest and who are facing criminal prosecution. He is available seven days a week for consultations.
February 14th, 2013
Every parent hopes and prays their children will be born without mental or physical problems. Children with special needs take a toll on both parents. This toll sometimes is the cause of divorces. Studies have shown children with autism and the burdens placed on the parents by these children can be the cause of the parents’ divorce.
Divorce Agreements And Special Needs Children
Parties entering into a settlement agreement or a separation agreement in a divorce have to deal with all of the normal issues such as custody, visitation, child support, spousal maintenance and division of property. However, when there is a special needs child involved, additional consideration must be given to the additional costs and burdens of raising a special needs child.
Parenting Plans And Special Needs Children
When developing a parenting plan for a special needs child, the parents must tailor the plan to deal with unique circumstances the child faces. Special needs children require specialized care-taking skills. In some situations, special parenting programs will be necessary for a parent who has not been primarily involved in the dealing with the special needs child everyday problems.
Child support payments are usually determined by the standards maintained in the Child Support Standards Act. However the normal child support payments may not be sufficient to deal with the unique problems, expenses, additional therapy and additional special programs special needs children require. Special needs children may be so disabled they may never be self-supporting or be capable of living on their own. The increased burden the residential custodial parent has of maintaining the special needs child may have a negative impact on his or her ability to earn a living and become self-supporting.
In dealing with the drafting of settlement agreements and separation agreements, divorce attorneys must take into consideration the additional problems and parenting needs of a special needs child. Agreements must be specifically tailored to deal with the unique and special circumstances of these children.
February 13th, 2013
The Legislature in the State of New York is considering changing the criminal penalties related to hit and run car accidents. New York State Legislator, Lee Zeldin, from Shirley, Long Island recently stated “many drivers believe if they are intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, there is more jail time by staying at the scene of a car accident.” Zeldin went on to say “this is a problem with State law that needs to be fixed, you are not going to see any benefit from leaving the scene.”
There is a bill in the State Legislature that increases the maximum penalty for leaving the scene of a car accident when someone dies. The new law changes the length of the term of imprisonment. It would increase to 5 to 15 years in prison. This would be the same penalty currently in existence for second degree manslaughter.
If this bill passes the State Legislature, the penalties related to leaving the scene of an accident where someone is only injured would also be dramatically increased too. The current law has a 1 ½ year to 4 years of imprisonment for leaving the scene of a car accident. The new law would change the penalty to 2 ½ to 7 years in prison.
About The Author
Elliot S. Schlissel is an attorney practicing law throughout the metropolitan New York area. Elliot and his staff of four lawyers represent individuals being investigated related to criminal matters and individuals charged with crimes. We offer free consultations and the phones are monitored 24/7.
February 12th, 2013
Mona Kanciper, the President and founder of the New York Horse Rescue, in 2009, injected a tranquilizer into a dog named Cooper. She did this in front of two riding students. One of the students, Michelle Struder, was 10 years of age and told her mother about the incident.
Treatment of Dogs
Based on allegations of Kanciper’s treatment of three dogs on her farm, she was indicted in July of 2010 on 3 counts of aggravated cruelty to animals. She was also indicted on two counts of endangering the welfare of the child. A trial was held in Suffolk County, New York before Judge James Hudson. Kanciper was acquitted on all of the criminal charges except one. She was found guilty on one count of endangering the welfare of a child. She was sentenced, in January of 2012, to 3 months of probation plus additional special conditions including obtaining counseling and being prevented from owning a dog without permission of her probation officer. Kanciper appealed.
The Defendant Appeals
In her appeal, Kanciper showed the dog she allegedly euthanized was alive months after the alleged incident. Her attorneys also argued the “degree of culpability” for endangering the welfare of a child under Penal Law section 260.10 is that the defendant must be aware the conduct may “likely result in harm to the child.” Even if the child, Michelle, was witness to the injection, there was no elements of violence, sadism, brutality or any other issue raised that would endanger the welfare of the child. Her attorneys also argued on farms, injections are given to animals quite often. Their argument was there is no requirement children be shielded from the routine injections of animals on farms.
The Appeals Court found “there was no evidence demonstrating that the child was aware, at the time she witnessed the injection, that the defendant intended to euthanize that dog later that day or that she was upset by seeing the dog receive a tranquilizer injection.” The court went on to find that the child, Michelle, was “familiar” with the type of medical procedures requiring injections because her own dog had been injected to be treated for diabetes. The court in the end found “the evidence supporting the defendant’s conviction was not legally sufficient.”