Live chat- online now

We are here to assist you. Chat with us now.

Chat Banner

Can We Help You?

Menu
Squarebtn

contact us today

516-561-6645 718-350-2802 631-319-8262

free consultation

Houses in Divorce can Only be Sold at the End of the Case

housesINdivorce-150x150In a recent case heard in Manhattan Supreme Court, Justice Milton A. Tingling ordered the sale of a Queens home by a receiver at a price set by the Court.  The home was ordered sold during the course of the marriage.The Appellate Division (an appeals court) ruled that Justice Tingling should not have sold the home during the pendency of the proceeding while the valuation on the appraisal report had not been turned over to the parties.

Dr. Steven Thomas Moran had brought a proceeding for the appointment of a receiver to sell the marital home at the start of the divorce proceeding.  He contended that his wife, Justine Claire Moran, had prevented the sale of the home by asking for $850,000.00 as the listing price of the home.  Dr. Moran claimed that this was more than $200,000.00 above the house’s market value.  Justice Tingling ordered that a receiver be appointed because Mrs. Moran had listed the home at a level “grossly in excess of any appraised value”.

Two weeks before this appeal was argued, on September 15, 2010, both sides were able to work out a settlement.  Unfortunately, Justice Timberling, did not approve the settlement until two weeks after the case was argued before the Appellate Division.

Decision of the Appellate Division

The Appellate Division stated that the law is well settled that prior to the entry of the Judgment of Divorce, a court may not order the sale of marital property.  This is specifically true for assets held in tenancy by the entirety (equal shares by the spouses).

Long Island Divorce Lawyers

Our law office has an extensive practice representing individuals in divorce proceedings.  We actively litigate custody proceedings, family court proceedings,as well issues involving the division of property and annulments.  We protect fathers’ rights and mothers’ rights in divorce proceedings.  Should you have an issue involving a matrimonial or family legal matter, feel free to call us at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802.

Father’s Rights Attorneys

child-support-fatherThere is a growing feeling among fathers who deal with the Family Courts and the Supreme Courts in the State of New York on matrimonial and family law matters that they are being treated unfairly. The law in the State of New York says that fathers and mothers have equal rights to custody. There is no presumption that mothers should receive custody and fathers should pay child support. However, many fathers who have dealt with the legal system come away with a sour taste in their mouth due to bias in favor of the mother.

Father’s rights attorneys are matrimonial and family law attorneys with extensive experience in protecting the rights of fathers involved with custody, support and visitation matters. If you feel you are being treated unfairly, contact the father’s rights attorneys at the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo. We can help you!

Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq.

800-344-6431

Picture Courtesy of SouthWesternDifference.info

Jewish Groups Support Reversal of NY Court’s Nullification of Rabbinic Arbitration Decision

beth din rabbinic tribunal artibrationAs reported here, and as Mitchell Rubenstein predicted, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court will consider a teacher’s appeal of a Kings County Supreme Court’s nullification of a rabbinical arbitration panel’s decision in an employment case.

Following a dispute between the Hebrew Academy of Five Towns and Rockaway and one of its teachers, Nachum Brisman, regarding the school’s decision to terminate his employment, both sides agreed to have their dispute arbitrated by a well-known rabbinic panel, the Beth Din of America. The rabbinic panel’s arbitration decision favored the teacher in the dispute and when the teacher brought the decision to the Kings County Supreme Court to enforce the decision, it instead vacated it.

Now, Brisman has appealed the lower court’s vacature of the arbitration before the Appellate Division. Three major orthodox Jewish organizations, the Orthodox Union, Agudath Israel of America, and Torah U’Mesorah, joined together last week to file a “Friend of the Court” brief, arguing that the Appellate Division should reverse Judge Balter’s vacature of the arbitration panel’s decision.

You can read the amicus brief here.

The organizations’ amicus brief emphasized that their support of Brisman’s appeal “should not be construed as advocacy on behalf of either party with respect to their underlying claims.” Rather, they clarified in the brief that they are advocating for the reversal of the Supreme Court’s vacature of the rabbinic arbitration agreement in order to prevent the weakening of the rabbinic arbitration system in general.

Indeed, it is difficult to fathom how the court could nullify an arbitration decision that both parties had agreed in advance to abide by. Such a decision seems to encourage the losing party in any kind of arbitration decision to appeal any decision if he knew that the state courts would vacate any decision that the losing party was unhappy with, as long as he could convince the court that the arbitration panel’s decision is “irrational.”

We will see if the Appellate Division agrees. Update 2/19/10: It does!

Picture courtesy of vosizneias.com

Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Baldwin, Malverne, Freeport, Oceanside, Long Beach, Elmont, Lakeview, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Merrick, Bellmore

  • banner-changes
  • image5
  • image6
  • image7