November 29th, 2010
In April of 2009, Clare Menagh, an elderly woman, was using a walker to help her get around. While Clare was walking on the sidewalk, a four-year-old was riding a bicycle near Clare. A collision took place and Clare broke her hip. Several months later, she died of causes unrelated to the incident. At the time of her death, she was eighty-seven years of age.
Estate Sues Mother And Four-Year-Old
Her estate sued not only the child’s mother, but they also sued the four-year-old. They claimed the child had been riding her bicycle in a negligent manner on the sidewalk.
A motion was made by the defense counsel for the young girl requesting that the case be dismissed against the child. The judge refused to dismiss the case. He cited a case dating back to 1929 that suggested a four-year-old could be held to a standard of reasonable care for a child of that age. Query: what standard of care is a four-year-old capable of meeting?
The child is not yet attending kindergarten, which will happen when she turns five. Legal experts throughout New York are shaking their heads with regard to the absurdity of the court’s ruling. Holding a child of four to a standard of reasonable care is absurd. The lawsuit is now moving forward and we look forward to seeing the final result in this case.
About Our Firm
Our law office has been handling all types of personal injury cases for more than thirty years. We represent individuals involved in car accidents, truck accidents, slip and fall cases and incidents of wrongful death. We also assist clients involving dog bites and cases where they are hit by individuals riding bicycles. Should you, a friend or loved one be injured, please call us. We work on all our personal injury cases on a contingency basis. We receive a percentage of the amount of the judgment received. If the event we are not successful, there are no attorney fees. Disbursements if any are charged at the end of the case. Feel free to call us at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802, or contact us by email.
November 24th, 2010
Kevin Cohen, Esq., was an attorney on Long Island. He was recently found guilty of stealing in excess of $300,000 from families he represented. He had promised these families to help them adopt children. Unfortunately, the children did not exist.
Mr.Cohen’s defense was “mental illness”. He represented himself at the time of trial. He claimed he could not be criminally responsible for his actions due to the fact he suffered from a mental illness. Unfortunately for Mr. Cohen, the prosecution was successful. They were able to show that he was a bright, intelligent lawyer who knew exactly what he was doing.
Judge John Kase, sitting in the county court of Nassau County, ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support an insanity defense for Mr. Cohen.
From October 2007 to the time of his arrest in September 2009, Mr. Cohen was in charge of an adoption agency called Adoption Annex. He represented to the public that he was an adoption expert. He charged his clients large sums of money for his legal services. He had also fabricated forged records and had shown his clients fake sonograms and fake medical records to convince them he had a child who could be adopted.
At the time of his arrest, Mr. Cohen’s bail was set at $500,000 and he was never able to make bail. Mr. Cohen deserves a long jail sentence !!.
About our Firm
November 22nd, 2010
Michael J. Muratore was a landlord on Long Island. Mr. Muratore installed hidden cameras inside smoke detectors in the apartment he leased to his tenant. Mr. Muratore was arrested and charged with two class ”E” felonies for criminal video voyeurism in addition to two misdemeanors. Mr. Muratore was convicted of these crimes.
The plaintiff in the civil suit was a nineteen-year-old student. She had leased a two-bedroom apartment from Mr. Muratore on July 1st, 2008. On August 30th, the plaintiff’s boyfriend noticed that the smoke detector was not working. He opened up the smoke detector and he found a camera located inside.
The plaintiff brought a lawsuit claiming emotional distress against Mr. Muratore. She sought civil damages for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Judge Ute Lally, sitting in the Supreme Court in Nassau County, New York, has held that the issue of the emotional distress should be presented to the jury.
About Our Firm
The Law Office of Elliot S. Schlissel has been representing individuals charged with crimes throughout the metropolitan New York area for more than 30 years. We have extensive experience in handling felonies and misdemeanors. Our office also represents individuals charged with drug offenses, domestic violence, assault and battery, juvenile offenses, driving while intoxicated, weapon possession and all types of sex crimes and white collar crimes. We help our clients get out of jail by arranging for bail.
Should you, a friend or family member be the subject of an investigation by law enforcement or be charged with a crime, call us at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802 or contact us by email. We can help you!
November 19th, 2010
Mothers sometimes are also involved in parental alienation. They try to turn the children against their fathers. The bad-mouthing of the father to the children can create parental alienation syndrome in the children.
Fathers need to be protected. At the law office of Elliot Schlissel, we have been protecting fathers for in excess of thirty years. Should you have issues involving divorce, orders of protection, child custody, visitation, paternity, parental alienation or parental alienation syndrome, call us at 1-800-344-6431 or contact us by email. We can help you!
November 18th, 2010
A new law was recently implemented allowing unmarried same sex partners, which includes gay couples, to jointly adopt children in New York.The sponsors of this statue indicate that this law clears up any issues as to whether gay couples can jointly adopt. This statue also deals with the issues of child support, insurance, child custody and visitation issues.
New York still does not allow same sex marriages. This past December, the New York State Senate voted down a statue that would have legalized these relationships.
However, in the event individuals residing in New York are married in another state or country that recognizes same sex marriages, the New York courts have recognized such marriages as valid in New York. New York will also grant divorces to individuals who were married in a state or foreign jurisdiction that authorizes same sex marriages.
In the past, for same sex couples to adopt, each individual would have to adopt the child separately. There are many children who live in foster homes and need loving parents to adopt them. This new statue is a step in the right direction.
November 17th, 2010
A defendant in a criminal case involving misdemeanors and felonies of harassment and assault was scheduled for a trial in Bronx County before Supreme Court Justice Duffy. On the date of the trial, June 12, 2010, the defendant failed to appear. The defendant’s lawyer argued that Mr. Bernandez did not receive notice of the scheduled trial date.
A hearing was held before Justice Duffy to determine if Mr. Bernandez knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present at the time of his trial. The court found that the defendant was previously advised by the judge that if he failed to appear, prosecutors could proceed to try his case in his absence. The defendant was further advised by the court clerk to return to the court for his trial.
The defendant failed to appear at the time of his trial and a bench warrant was issued. Since Mr. Bernandez was warned that he would be tried and of the consequences of his failure to appear at the time of trial, the court determined that the trial could go on in absentia.
Mr. Bernandez made a mistake. If you are charged with a crime, you should appear with defense counsel. Not showing up on the day of the trial is a mistake!
November 16th, 2010
President Obama’s healthcare reform law will increase medicaid enrollments in the year 2014.
If New York and other states are going to survive, they must find a way to reduce their medicaid expenditures. New York Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch has recognized the need for a comprehensive strategy to deal with the cost of long term care for New York residents. Mr. Ravitch points out that long term care accounts for almost 50% of all medicaid spending in the state of New York.
Mr. Ravitch has suggested that New State establish an “innovation center to develop new ways to deliver and pay for healthcare, increase support for preventive care and reform medical malpractice”.
Mr. Ravitch has requested that the state’s political leaders change the medicaid financing formulas that exist in New York. Mr. Ravitch is right. Medicaid is bankrupting the state of New York as well as many other states. A detailed study must be immediately undertaken to determine what methodology needs to be used to reduce medicaid expenditures throughout the United States. Individuals need to be personally responsible for their long term medical care. In our society individuals should have appropriate medical treatment available to them; however, this medical treatment and long term care must not be at an unlimited cost!
In the event you have elder care issues involving wills, trusts, medicaid eligibility, probate or contested wills and estates. Contact the law office of Elliot Schlissel at 1-800-344-6431, or by email. We can help you!
November 15th, 2010
A federal judge recently held that individuals who are subject to strip searches in the Nassau County Correctional Institution must receive $500 per person. It has been estimated that 20,000 people will be eligible for the $500 pay out.
United States District Court Judge Dennis Hurley has taken this action because these individuals were subject to “humiliation and emotional distress”. The lawsuit against Nassau County stemmed from a policy of the Nassau County Correctional Institution to strip search everyone at their facility. The court held that it was unconstitutionally intrusive to force people accused of minor misdemeanors to expose their private parts without some reason to suspect that they are hiding something. The lawsuit was initially brought in 1999.
In the past, Nassau County had taken the position that since 85% of the prisoners were male and the searches were always conducted by officers of the same gender, that the damages are excessive. Nassau County claimed that the officers did not touch the prisoners and the prisoners were only required to be naked for 30-45 seconds.
However, Nassau County did admit that each of the prisoners were forced to spread their buttocks as part of the search. The District Court Judge Hurley disagreed with Nassau County’s position.
In his ruling, he stated that “it is hard to believe that the grievous affront to human dignity occasioned by being subjected to an unwarranted visual body-cavity search would not warrant an award considerably in excess of nominal damages. Nassau County has indicated they will appeal the ruling.
November 12th, 2010
Ms. Huguettem Clark owns a 52-acre estate in New Canaan, Connecticut. The estate has been unoccupied for more than twenty years. During this entire period, Ms. Clark has been residing in a hospital. She has been active in the society pages of various newspapers and has made many charitable contributions.
Ms. Clark in now 104 years of age. Investigators have undertaken an investigation with regard to the handling of her multi-million dollar homes and her other assets over the past two decades.
Ms. Clark is the daughter of a United States Senator who built a huge fortune related to his owning copper mines. The Manhattan District Attorney is looking into the circumstances involving Ms. Clark’s assets. It is estimated that Ms. Clark’s fortune is worth $500 million dollars.
Guardianship proceedings were undertaken on behalf of Ms. Clark. At the present time, these proceedings have not been successful.
It is unknown whether Ms. Clark has a will and, if so, who would be the beneficiary. It is also unknown whether she has created a trust for the family to shield her assets from the huge tax implications they would have at the time of her death. In the event that Ms. Clark has a will, it is anticipated that the will is likely to be contested and there will be probate proceedings involving her estate.
November 11th, 2010
In a Westchester Family Court case, a mother sought to modify a judgement of divorce in which the father had received custody of the children. The judgement of divorce gave the father sole legal custody of his two young children.
The mother petitioned the Family Court in Westchester County to enter a new order giving her physical custody of the children. She claimed there had been a change in circumstances. She claimed further that the children now wished to live with her. The mother asserted that she was the superior parent and that the father was “unfit to be the custodial parent”.
The mother’s claims were rejected. The court found the mother’s claims were spurious. The father did not neglect the children. The court also placed on the record the facts and circumstances concerning the mother’s past substance abuse history. The mother also suffered from depression, had been involved in suicide attempts and had abandoned the children.
The children’s wishes were not controlling. The court stated in the decision that the desire of the children to live with their mother is not the sole controlling factor involving who should be the custodial parent. The judge found the father was a good parent and that there was no evidence that he had neglected his children. The mother’s argument that there had been a change in circumstances was not proven and it was in the best interests of the children to remain with their father.
Fathers have equal rights to custody in the state of New York. God gives each child two parents. The state of New York says that both parents have equal rights to be the custodial parent of their children. Fathers should be more aggressive in seeking custody of their children. They should be sensitive as to whether the mother is involved in parental alienation of their children.
The fathers’ rights attorneys at the law office of Elliot Schlissel for three decades have been helping fathers obtain custody and visitation rights with regard to their children.
We take an aggressive stand on all fathers’ rights, custody, child support, parental alienation, orders of protection and visitation issues. In cases where there are orders of protection issued against fathers, we fight the orders of protection. We get the fathers back into their homes.
The fathers’ rights attorneys at the law office of Elliot Schlissel have more than 30 years of experience helping fathers maintain relationships with their children. Contact us at 1-800-344-6431 or by email. We can help you!