Live chat- online now

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

Chat Banner

Can We Help You?


contact us today

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

free consultation

Behind on your Mortgage and Threatened with Foreclosure What do you do?


Financial institutions generally do not move forward with foreclosure lawsuits until the homeowner is 3 months behind on their mortgage payments. So if you are only 1 or 2 months behind as long as you catch up and don’t fall the magic 3 months behind, generally speaking your financial institution will not put you into foreclosure. However, when you fall 3 months behind your financial institution can chose to reject all future mortgage payments and call in the entire balance of your mortgage. This is technically known as accelerating the mortgage. This means you no longer owe the monthly payments. You now owe the entire amount of your mortgage.

Options offered by Banks

Banks will initially send you a late notice. Thereafter they will send you letters involving potential options with regard to your mortgage. These options will include mortgage modifications, deeds in lieu of foreclosure, short sales and forbearance agreements. One of the mortgage modification options is the homeowner redoing the mortgage in a manner that the months you are behind are put at the end of your mortgage. Other options involve forgiving portions of your mortgage if you owe more than your home is worth. Another type of option is the bank redoing your mortgage and making it into a balloon mortgage. The balloon mortgage would reduce the amount of your monthly payments but have a large balloon payment down road.

Reasonable Income

One of the key factors banks look at when underwriting a mortgage modification is for you to be able to show the financial institution you are working and you have a reasonable income which will support a mortgage modification. One of the ways of maximizing your opportunity to obtain a mortgage modification is to retain an experienced foreclosure law firm that deals with submissions to financial institutions for mortgage modifications.

90 Day Notice of Foreclosure

Prior to your financial institution serving you with legal papers in a foreclosure lawsuit they will give you a 90 day notice. The 90 day notice of foreclosure will state the amount of money you owe on your mortgage as arrears and will give you an opportunity to pay all of the arrears to avoid foreclosure. Sometime after the 90 day period, if you do not pay all the arrears on your mortgage you will be served with a summons and complaint in a foreclosure lawsuit.

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

If you cannot immediately bring your mortgage up to date another alternative is to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. This will stop the bank’s attorneys from suing you in a foreclosure lawsuit and give you 5 years to pay back the arrears owed related to the months you fell behind on your mortgage. While making those arrears payments to the bankruptcy trustee you will also have to make your monthly mortgage payments. Although bankruptcy may stop the house from going into foreclosure, it will usually cost you more on the monthly basis than you were previously paying for your mortgage payments.

Defending and Negotiating

Elliot Schlissel Experienced foreclosure attorneys usually both defend you from foreclosure lawsuits and simultaneously negotiate with the bank’s lawyers to help obtain homeowners mortgage modifications. The technique of fighting and negotiating at the same time it the best way to maximize the chances of the homeowners keeping their homes.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a partner in Schlissel DeCorpo LLP a law firm that defends foreclosure cases. He can be reached at 800-344-6431 or at

VIDEO: Orders of Protection

Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog on the topin of Orders of Protection:

Elliot S. Schlissel is an attorney with nearly 38 years experience representing clients in all aspects of Family Law. He and his associates may be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to

Nassau County Judge Blocks Marriage

Jennifer Burger wanted to marry Mr. Diack. Michael Diack is a convicted level one sex offender. Jennifer brought a proceeding before Judge Maron, who sits in the Supreme Court located in Nassau County, New York. She asked the court to set aside a January 2009 stipulation contained in her divorce judgment from her previous husband Robert Burger. She sought to set aside this stipulation so she could marry Michael Diack. The stipulation, which she had executed, required three adults be present any time Mr. Diack was around the Burger’s children, currently 8 and 13 years of age.

Judge Refuses to Set Aside Stipulation

When Judge Maron refused to set aside this stipulation, he effectively blocked her from ever marrying Mr. Diack. She couldn’t marry Mr. Diack because she could not live with him in the same residence as her children pursuant to the stipulation.

The Judge’s decision stated there was no change in circumstances that would justify his setting aside this agreement. Jennifer’s attorney, stated “this woman should not have to choose between the man she loves and wishes to marry and being the custodial parent for her children, when her fiance poses no risk of harm to the children.”

Jennifer’s fiance has pled guilty in 2001 to possession of child pornography in the third degree and for grand larceny for writing bad checks. He was given a sentence of two to four years in prison and labeled a level one sex offender.

Father Seeks to Protect His Children

The children’s father, Mr. Burger opposed the vacating the stipulation, claiming Mr. Diack would be a danger to his children. Mr. Burger’s attorney claimed his client’s opposition to setting aside the stipulation was driven by a “a legitimate concern” for his children.

Father’s Rights Lawyer

Fathers have rights that need to be protected. In situations involving divorces orders of protection, child custody, child visitation, child abuse and child neglect proceedings, fathers need aggressive, experienced advocates. Fathers dealing with issues concerning paternity, annulments, equitable distribution of assets in a divorce, relocation problems and parental alienation problems should seek out the very best lawyers available to represent them. The Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo is a recognized father’s rights law firm. We have litigated numerous matters on behalf of fathers throughout the Metropolitan New York area for more than 30 years. We are well known and respected in the courts and by our adversaries. Call us should you have an issue you wish to discuss.

Order of Protection Fails, Woman Shot

restrainingorder-150x150Carmen Valdez obtained an order of protection from her boyfriend, Felix Perez. She was assured by police officers that Felix would be arrested if he threatened her in violation of the order of protection, issued by the Bronx Criminal Court. Thereafter, Mr. Perez shot Carmen Valdez. Bullets pierced her face and her arm. Felix Perez killed himself with the same gun. Carmen Valdez sued the City of New York for failure to arrest Felix Perez and protect her pursuant the order of protection.

City of New York Not Liable to Carmen Valdez

The New York State Court of Appeals (New York’s highest court) in a 5-2 decision in the matter of Valez v. The City of New York, found that New York City would not be liable for damages to Carmen Valdez for her gunshot wounds. Even though she was assured by a police officer that her ex-boyfriend would be arrested when he threatened her, the City of New York still could not be held liable. The Court found that Ms. Valdez did not establish or create a “special relationship” between her and New York City based on the promise of a police officer to arrest her boyfriend when he threatened her on the phone. The court stated in its decision Carmen did not have “a justifiable reliance” on the City’s affirmative undertaking of the promise of the police officer to keep her safe. Even though Ms. Valdez, in compliance with her order of protection, reported to a police officer that her boyfriend threatened to kill her “the officer’s statement did not create a special relationship that would create liability upon the City of New York.” So much for the protection offered by an order of protection issued by a Criminal Court!

New York Divorce and Family Court Attorneys

The Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo have been protecting women involved in domestic violence situation, by obtaining orders of protection for them in both the Criminal Courts and Family Courts for more than 30 years. We also represent men and women in issues concerning child abuse, child neglect, divorce related issues, child custody issues, mother’s rights and father’s rights issues as well as drafting pre nuptial and post nuptial agreements. Feel free to call for a free consultation.

Order of Protection Fails to Protect Woman


Santia Williams was murdered. The person responsible killed himself. The order of protection she had against her killer, her ex – boyfriend and her child’s father, did not work!

Santia Williams lived in Bayshore, Long Island. She had a child with Jason Jenkins. She was involved in litigation with him as to when he could visit their child. On July 12, 2011, he brought a shotgun into their apartment. He shot Santia Williams. She died of the wound. After killing his child’s mother, he turned the shot gun on himself. He died instantly.

Order of Protection From Suffolk County Family Court

When Santia’s relationship with Jason started to fade, arguments ensued. She was not giving him the visitation with his child that he demanded. Santia went to court and obtained an order of protection from the Suffolk County Family Court. Jenkins violated the order of protection when he rushed into Santia’s home and shot her. Sometimes orders of protection are just pieces of paper. They won’t stand up to bullets!

New York Divorce Lawyer

The Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo have been handling divorces in the Metropolitan New York area for over thirty three years. We litigate all aspects of divorce related proceedings in the Supreme Court and Family Court. These proceedings involve divorce groundsno fault divorcechild custodymothers’ rightsfathers’ rightschild supportdownward modification of child supportspousal maintenance (alimony) and domestic violence issues. In addition, we negotiate separation agreementsprenuptial agreementsand post-nuptial agreements for our clients. We litigate equitable distribution issues involving doctor, dentist and lawyer licenses. Call us for a free consultation.

Six-year-old’s Video Testimony Rejected by Family Court Judge

father-150x1504Judge Richardson-Mendelsohn, a Family Court judge sitting in Queens County, New York, has refused a request to allow a six-year-old boy to testify via a closed circuit television hookup in a Family Court proceeding seeking an order of protection against his uncle.

Z. Shareef, the boy’s mother, had brought a proceeding in the Queens Family Court seeking the extension of an order of protection against her husband’s brother.  After bringing the application to the court, her attorney requested permission for the six-year-old boy to testify by a closed-circuit video hook-up.

Request for Video Hook-Up Denied

Family Court Judge Edwina G. Richardson-Mendelsohn denied the application to allow the six-year-old to testify by a video hook-up.  She stated in her decision that respondent Nhassen’s constitutional rights outweighed the need to protect the boy from psychological trauma.

The petition brought by the boy’s attorney indicated the boy is so afraid of his uncle that he’ll be petrified when he enters the court room and will be unable to testify in open court.  The judge rejected this argument, stating in her decision, “Although the petitioner contends that a her six-year-old son is scared of the respondent and therefore it will be traumatic for him to testify in [his] presence, no specific evidence supporting serious mental or emotional harm to the child has been presented.”  The lawsuit brought by Ms. Shareef, the boy’s mother, indicates, among other allegations, that the uncle has kicked her son and also hit him in violation of an order of protection.

Family Court Attorneys

The Fathers’ Rights Lawyers at The Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo have been representing men regarding applications for orders of protection for more than three decades.  Our office aggressively presents the fathers’ positions in cases brought by Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and Child Protective Services (CPS) for child abuse.  We work with our clients to provide the best possible results in these proceedings.  We also represent fathers in custody disputes, child support matters, visitation cases, spousal support matters, as well as all aspects of divorce litigation.  If you are a father or a man faced with a difficult situation either in a divorce or Family Court proceeding, we are the law firm that can help you.  Feel free to call us 24/7 at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802.

Immunity for Referees/Law Guardians in Family Court Proceedings

FathRights-150x150In the case of Wilson v. Wilson-Paulson, the wife was granted sole custody of the her daughter. After receiving custody of her daughter, she brought a subsequent proceeding in the family court. She alleged in this proceeding that the daughter’s father had been involved in an attempted assault, aggravated harassment, had been stalking her and various other offenses. The proceeding in the family court was sent to a referee for a fact-finding determination.

The referee entered an Order of Protection. It required the father to stay away from his ex-wife and the parties’ daughter. The father subsequently brought a proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In this proceeding, he represented himself. He asserted that under 42USC Section 1983, that the ex-wife, the family court referee and the guardian ad litem had violated his rights under the 14th amendment. He claimed that he was deprived of his fundamental rights as a father.

Judge Gardephe, sitting in the Southern District of New York, rendered a decision that the actions of the guardian ad litem, his ex-wife and the referee were protected by judicial immunity. He found that they could not be sued in their personal individual capacities for acts or omissions that occurred while they were involved in their official duties. The court also dismissed the 1983 claim against his ex-wife. The court found the allegations were insufficient to show she acted “under color of state law”.

Fathers’ Rights Attorneys

Fathers are often treated as second class citizens by the courts. There are numerous situations where fathers’ rights need to be protected. Should you be involved in a divorce proceeding where there are issues of custody, visitation, child support or orders of protection issues, the fathers’ rights attorneys at the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo can help you. Feel free to call us at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802.

Judge Bars Wife From Home

fathers-150x150Judge Bruno, a Supreme Court Justice sitting in Nassau County, has given a father exclusive occupancy of the marital residence. In New York, a judge can give one spouse exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence during the pendency of a divorce case. In this case, the court found that the mother’s occupancy in the house caused “domestic strife” and that removing her from the house was necessary to protect the children and father.In this case, the wife had numerous unexplained absences for periods of time. Although she claimed she was in alcohol treatment programs, this could not be verified. Judge Bruno ruled “based on the lengthy periods of time the defendant was living in an alternate residence, which was not necessary for her alcohol related problems, this court finds such a time away from the martial residence to be voluntary on the part of the defendant.” Judge Bruno further stated, “as part of the foregoing, it is not necessary for this court to opine upon whether the time period defendant was absent from the marital residence for alcohol related therapy was considered voluntary”.Counsel for the wife claimed that she was only out of the house due to participating in therapy programs related to her alcoholic condition. Judge Bruno did not buy this argument. The father was given the custody of his children and the mother received visitation with the children.

Fathers’ Rights

Fathers have equal rights to live in their homes. It is common for women in divorce situations to bring applications for orders of protection to throw fathers out of the house for the purpose of obtaining exclusive occupancy of the household. This puts fathers in a very difficult position when arguing for custody of their children.

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 Schlissel DeCorpo, 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!

Family Court Issues An Order Of Protection Between Adopted Mother & Birth Mother

adoptive-150x150Earlier this year, Judge Julianne Eisman, sitting in the Family Court of Nassau County, rendered a decision describing that the relationship between a birth mother and the woman who adopted her three children as an “intimate relationship”. Under New York State Law, this means that the Family Court has jurisdiction to grant an order of protection.

M.S. has five adopted children. Three of the children are biological sons of K.G. In March of 2009, K.G. sent a series of threatening letters to M.S. In one letter, she wrote “please return my son’s death certificate or crematory certificate”. M.S. also indicated that K.G. had taken photographs of the children and followed their bus to school. Due to these events, M.S. brought an action in the Family Court of Nassau County for a temporary order of protection.

Family Court Jurisdiction

The Family Court in New York State is a court of limited jurisdiction. It can only exercise jurisdiction concerning orders of protection which involve individuals with an “intimate relationship”. This “intimate relationship” provision was added as an amendment to the New York State law in 2008.

Judge Eisman found that an “initimate relationship” did exist between the adoptive mother and the birth mother; therefore, she granted an order of protection to the adoptive mother preventing the birth mother from interacting with the children. This is an excellent decision. The 2008 amendment to the New York State law was designed to expand the Family Court’s ability to grant orders of protection. Judge Eisman cirrectly interpreted the statute.

Should you have any questions regarding orders of protection, child custody or any other issues involving family disputes, please contact the Family Law attorneys at the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo, by email or at 1-800-344-6431.

Married Women Can Obtain Orders of Protection Against Boyfriends

emotional-cheating-1Let’s assume you are married. But on the side you also have a boyfriend. During the course of your dalliance with your boyfriend he becomes abusive. What can you do?

In 2008 New York law changed regarding obtaining orders of protection. The law now allows individuals in “intimate” relationships with non-relatives to obtain orders of protection.

In January of 2009 the Madison County Family Court denied Jessica D’s request for an order of protection based on public policy. The court in this case acknowledged that Jessica and her boyfriend had an intimate relationship but for public policy reasons since she was married the court refused to give her an order of protection.

The Appellate Division for the Third Department (an appeals court) held that the purpose for the expansion of the law by the State Legislature was to protect citizens from domestic abuse situations. The court held that the legislature’s intent was to extend the court’s jurisdiction to grant orders of protection to relationships of a non-traditional nature, such as a married woman having meritorious relationship during the term of her marriage with a boyfriend.

Orders of protection can create all kinds of problems for both men and women. Should you experience these problems feel free to contact the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo for assistance at 1-800-344-6431.

  • banner-changes
  • image5
  • image6
  • image7