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

Saving Marriages After Adultery

adultery-150x150Adulterous relationships occur in approximately 50% of all marriages. The discovery of the adultery by the spouse can bring profound changes to the marital relationship. The betrayal causes pain and instability within the marriage. It is estimated that in less than a third of the situations involving adultery, the relationship between the couple ultimately returns to normal.

Handling Affairs

Dr. Tammy Nelson has recently written a book deals with how to successfully save relationships after the discovery of adultery. In her book, Dr. Nelson states “often affairs are like viruses, in that they’re opportunistic and they feed on a part of one’s self that is kept under ground, unknown even to one’s self.” Dr. Nelson discusses in her book reconnecting to the basic relationship between the parties.

She suggests the parties shouldn’t go into details about the facts of the affair. Instead, the couples should concentrate on re-connecting with each other. They should open up and deal with the insecurities and other problems in their relationship.

The Book: “Getting the Sex You Want”

Dr. Nelson, in her book, talks about the shame, anger and guilt experienced by couples when illicit affairs are discovered. She discusses the fact that an affair is usually an expression of sexual energy. She suggests the couple reinvent their relationship and deal with each others’ erotic needs. Forgiveness is not the answer to an affair. Re-establishing the relationship and dealing with sexual needs is more important.

This article discusses how to save a marital relationship. However, there are cases where the relationship can not be saved. In those situations, it is important to educate yourself with regard to the various issues involved in a divorce. The Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo

can assist you in these matters. We have developed an expertise involving issues related to family law, child custody, separation agreements, annulments, division of property, amicable divorce, fathers’ rights, mothers’ rights and the mediation of divorces.Call us for a free consultation at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802.

Divorce Rates For Women In the Military

Divorce rates for women in the military is double the divorce rate for men in the military. Approximately 8% of the women in the Armed Services of the United States obtained a divorce in 2010.  Only 3% of the men in the military were divorced in that year.  Dr. Benjamin Carney, a psychology professor at UCLA, conducted a study of divorce rates among military families between 1996 and 2005. This study showed that divorce rates for women in the military were 2 to 3 times higher than divorce rates for men.  Dr. Carney has two theories as to why the divorce rates for women are higher.  First is that the Armed Services are designed for military families that have civilian wives.  The Armed Services is not designed to deal with families where the husband is the civilian.  Marriages between men, who are in civilian life and women who have military careers have the highest  potential of ending in a divorce.  Men who have chosen military careers have civilian wives in 90% of the marriages.  However, women in the military have a majority of spouses that are also in the military service. Professor Carney also sees gender role reversals as an additional reason for the disparity between the divorce rates for men and women in the Armed Services.

Conclusion: If the Armed Services is going to be a more attractive place for women, action must be taken to help them maintain and keep their marriages going.

New York and Long Island Divorce Lawyers

The Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo handles all types of divorces. We represent individuals in the service as well as men and women in civilian life. We litigate divorce issues involving divorce grounds and family law related matters. We represent our clients concerning orders of protection, child custody, child abuse and child neglect matters. We negotiate separation agreements, pre nuptial and post nuptial agreements on behalf of our clients. We litigate issues involving mother’s rights and father’s rights. We help our clients deal with the division of property in divorces and we also work towards amicable resolution of divorce issues. Feel free to call us for a free consultation

Father’s Conduct Not Contemptuous

A proceeding was brought by a mother in Nassau County Supreme Court by Judge Falanga to hold her children’s father in civil contempt. The mother alleged the father, who was awarded custody of their child, had refused to make reasonable accommodations related to her Orthodox Jewish religious practices. She argued that her Orthodox Jewish observence requirements prevented her from driving to pick up and drop off the child. She alleged there were numerous Jewish holidays that fell on her Wednesday visitation days.

Prior Court Order

Judge Falanga took note that there had been a previous order making the father aware of the importance of maintaining a relationship between the mother and the child. However, Judge Falanga did not grant the mother’s application to find the father in contempt. The father suggested that an alternative to the Wednesday visitation, the mother have visitation with the child on Tuesdays. He claimed the mother refused to accept his offer of Tuesday visitation.

Judge Falanga found that although the father’s actions disrupted the visitation routine between the mother and the child his conduct did not rise to the level of being contemptuous. He stated “while visitation was a most precious right the child corresponding need to have normal socialization and age appropriate activities could not be held hostage to a very occasional and intermitant inability of the mother to visit. The mother’s motion to hold father in contempt was denied. Hooray for Judge Falanga!

Fathers’ Rights Law Firm in Nassau County

We litigate all types of father’s rights issues. We represent fathers in Nassau County, Kings County, Queens County and throughout the Metropolitan New York area. We litigate equitable distribution issues, spousal abuse, child support, child visitation, child custody and orders of protection. We protect our clients from allegations of child abuse.

We fight paternity proceedings in the family court. We deal with parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome cases. When the mother seeks to relocate the children making it difficult for fathers to have visitation, we litigate relocation problems. In amicable situations we negotiate separation agreement for our clients. When our clients lose their jobs or have reductions in their income we bring proceedings to reduce their child support obligations. We’re a full service father’s rights law firm. Our experience in the father’s rights area can help you in your case. Call us for a free consultation.

Suspects In Abuse Cases – Phone Calls are Taped

New York City jails tape all phone calls made by prisoners with the exception of calls to doctors and lawyers. Prosecutors have been using these tapes against these prisoners. More than 8,200 calls were taped last year in New York City jails. The largest use of these taped calls comes in domestic violence cases.

Domestic Violence

Men charged with assaulting and beating their wives and girlfriends seem to blabber mouths. “I need you to prepare the kids to start lying” was stated by one man to his girlfriend on these taped conversations. In another case the prisoner told his girlfriend “whatever you do, do not speak to the District Attorney.”

Scott Kesler, the Bureau Chief in the Queens District Attorney’s office stated the recording “revolutionized the way we were able to proceed against men in domestic violence cases. Mr. Kesler stated that we now have to ability “to prove what we’ve always suspected which is that defendants in domestic violence cases are in constant contact with their victims and they utilize the phone system to intimidate their victims and refuse to cooperate in their prosecution.

Orders of Protection

In virtually all domestic violence cases the abused individuals are given orders of protection preventing the abuser from having contact with them. These jail house calls are violation of the court ordered orders of protection and constitutes a crime in and of themselves.

In one case in Kings County the abuser called the victim 1,200 times while he was incarcerated. Sometimes the victims are so traumatized by these phone calls they refuse
to cooperate with the prosecutors. In these situations the District Attorneys office utilized the recordings to explain why the victims are refusing to testify.

In a case involving Mohammd Khan, who was charged with stabbing his wife in the head and shoulders with a meat cleaver. The wife testified she did not remember who her attacker was. The recordings showed that Mr. Khan had engaged in a campaign of coercion against his spouse. They were able to introduce her statements made in the hospital during the course of the proceedings against Mr. Khan. Mr. Khan was convicted and eventually sentenced to 7 to 10 years in prison.

Fathers’ Rights Lawyers

If you were arrested it is generally not in your interest to speak about the alleged crime you have committed. The father’s rights lawyers at the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo in addition we represent fathers concerning the following matters related to divorces and family court proceedings: orders of protection; child custody; child visitation; child support; spousal maintenance (alimony); child abuse & child neglect; CPS and ACS cases; paternity and equitable distribution; negotiating separation agreements and pre-nuptial and postnuptial agreements. Feel free to call us for a free consultation. We can protect your rights.

Canadian Gay Marriage Valid, Partner to Inherit in Probate Court


The Appellate Division in New York held in February of 2011, in the matter of the Estate of H. Kenneth Ranftle, that they recognize as valid the Canadian marriage of H. Kenneth Ranftle and J. Craig Leiby. The late Kenneth Ranftle named Craig as “surviving spouse and sole distributee” in his will. The court found that the recognizing of the Canadian marriage, for purposes of extending the partner of the deceased inheritance benefits, was not in violation of New York public policy.

The court said, “the legislature’s failure to authorize same sex couples to enter into marriage in New York, or acquire recognition of validly perform out of state same sex marriages, cannot serve as an expression of public policy for the state.” The decision was unanimously made by the Appellate Division of the First Department.

Obama Administration to No Longer  Defend the Defense of Marriage Act

The decision was rendered on February 24, 2011. This was the same day that the Obama Administration in Washington formally announced that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act. This law defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman under federal law.

Prior Marriage in 2008

Mr. Ranftle and Mr. Leiby married in Quebec, Ontario, in June of 2008. Mr. Ranftle lived together for a period of five months after their marriage. His will left the large majority of his estate to Mr. Leiby. Mr. Leiby was also designated his executor.

Mr. Leiby submitted a probate petition in New York County Surrogates Court. In it he claimed he was the surviving spouse and only distributee of the estate. One of Mr. Ranftle’s brothers brought a proceeding to set aside the probate petition.

Same Sex Marriage Not Valid in New York

The New York State Court of Appeals has previously ruled that same sex marriages are not valid if entered into in the state of New York. However, the court does recognize marriages in foreign countries and in other states where same sex marriages are considered legal.

During his administration, Governor David Patterson instructed state agencies to consider same sex marriages entered into in foreign countries and other states where they are considered legal, to be excepted in New York State.

Mr. Ranftle’s brother had argued in the Surrogates Court, “recognizing same sex marriages is a fundamental legal claim that cannot occur in the absence of legislative authority.” His argument was not accepted by either the Surrogates Court in New York County or the Appellate Division, First Department.


New York Divorce Lawyers

For more than thirty years, the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo has been handling divorce proceedings in New York. We represent individuals in same sex relationships. We negotiate pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements. We protect both mothers’ rights and fathers’ rights. We negotiate separation agreements on behalf of our clients. We litigate issues involving orders of protection, family law, child custody, child abuse and child neglect. Call us should you need a matrimonial or family law attorney within the Metropolitan New York area. Our phone numbers are 718-350-2802, 516-561-6645 or 1-800-344-6431.

When Do You Get the Engagement Ring Back?

ringIn a case this past summer, Justice Dickerson, a Supreme Court Judge sitting in Rockland County, New York, ordered a Hassidic woman to return a hundred-thousand dollar engagement ring to her betrothed. The man claimed he didn’t know when he gave her the ring at a religious wedding ceremony that she was still married to someone else. The woman appealed this decision. The Appellate Division of the Second Department held that this was a question of fact as to whether he knew she was married or not and it should have been decided after a trial, not on a motion for summary judgment. New York Civil Rights law section 80-b deals with the return of engagement rings. Larry Lipschultz gave his fiancee, Nadia Kinderman, a six carrot diamond ring in the summer of 2006. Thereafter, the Hassidic couple were married in an Orthodox Jewish wedding ceremony. Thereafter Mr. Lipschultz learned that his wife never obtained a civil divorce from her first husband. To say he was unhappy about this would be an understatement. They separated on September 13, 2007, less then a year after they were married. Mr. Libschultz thereafter filed an action demanding either $150,000 in cash or the return of the ring. He claimed that, under New York Civil Rights Law section 80-b, he was entitled to the recovery of the ring given as an engagement present on the basis of being in consideration for marriage.  His wife claimed he knew all along she was still married and therefore she should be entitled to keep the ring. The issue presented was whether he knew that she was not legally divorced. If he had knowledge of this, then the court could be justified in allowing his wife to keep the ring. The moral to this story is don’t buy a six carrot, $100,000 to $150,000 engagement ring. Two carrots would have been more than enough!


Fathers’ Rights Lawyer

We negotiate pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements for our client. In cases where our clients are professionals, have assets or have been previously married, we aggressively litigate all issues dealing with our clients’ high net worth statuses. We also deal with obtaining child custody for our clients. When our clients solely seek visitation, we see to it that they have liberal visitation. Child support and spousal maintenance issues (alimony) are significant issues that must be dealt with in all divorces. We see to that our clients’ rights are protected concerning these issues. Should allegations of domestic violence arise, we very aggressively litigate these issues and protect our clients’ rights and privileges. We also deal with issues concerning paternity, relocation problems, parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome issues. We also try to avoid litigation and negotiate separation agreements for our clients. Sometimes grandparents are cut off in divorces. In these cases, we litigate grandparents’ rights issues for our clients. Call us for a free consultation.

Neighborhood Change Insufficient to Modify Child Custody Terms

custody2-150x150 Lawrence C. and Antheap met based on an advertisement placed on a website for a partner to conceive a  child through artificial insemination. When the parties met, it was agreed that Antheap would be  artificially inseminated and Lawrence C. would play a role in the parenting of the perspective child. In  June of 2008, twins were born. A custody arrangement was worked out between the parties. During a  two-week period, Dad had the children with him for four evenings. Mom had the children with her for  ten evenings.

The relationship between the parties was never one of love and affection. It was strictly one of convenience, for the purpose of conceiving children. In 2007, the relationship soured.

Court Hearing Before Referee Barnett

Referee Barnett, sitting in the Family Court for New York County, rendered a decision after a hearing that the father should be the primary residential custodial parent of the children after they reach the age of four. In the decision of Referree Barnett, Dad was given final decision-making authority on all significant issues, including, without limitation, education, medical care and extra curricular activities. Mom appealed.

Appellate Division First Department Ruling

The Appellate Division of the First Department, located in New York County, overturned the decision of Court Referree Elizabeth Barnett. The Appellate Division found “none of the grounds upon which the Referree ordered a future change in custody are so compelling as to warrant the attended disruption of the children’s lives.” The court went on to state, “speculation (based solely on lay testimony) that the children, by reason of their non-traditional family background, would more easily fit in with other children in the father’s west village neighborhood than in the mother’s predominately Greek American neighborhood in Queens “was not a reasonable basis for making a custody decision concerning the best interest of the children.”

The Appellate Division also stated that, while each parent would do well to adopt a more cooperative attitude towards the other, the past problems with the mother’s conduct are not so great as to warrant displacing her as the primary custodial parent.

custody11-150x1501New York and Long Island Fathers’ Rights Attorneys

Are you a father with a legal problem? If so, we are the attorneys for you. We have more than thirty years of experience representing fathers in all types of father’s rights cases. We litigate divorce proceedings, child custody proceedings, child visitation proceedings, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony), as well as child abuse and child neglect proceedings in the Supreme Courts and Family Courts throughout the metropolitan New York area.

We develop defenses for fathers who are removed from their residences based on orders of protection. We litigate the equitable distribution of property of the parties in divorce cases. When the situation is appropriate, we negotiate separation agreements for our clients.

When mothers seek to leave the metropolitan New York area for the purposes of relocating, we litigate relocation problems on behalf of fathers.

If you are a father and you have problems involving your children, we are the law firm for you. We will give you a free consultation. We will analyze your problems and provide you with a detailed presentation as to how we can help you resolve these problems. Call us for a free consultation at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 – Father’s Rights Website.

Divorce Fails, Lack of Proof of Sexual Abandonment

divorce-150x1506In September of 2010, Justice Bruno, a New York State Supreme Court Judge sitting in Nassau County, heard testimony with regard to fault allegations concerning the issue of constructive abandonment in a divorce proceeding. Constructive abandonment is when one party to a marriage refuses to have sexual relations with his or her spouse for a period in excess of one year.

The wife in this case had to take the witness stand and answer many personal and embarrassing questions about her sex life.

The problem with a constructive abandonment ground for divorce is that sexual activity between husbands and wives usually takes place in the privacy of the bedroom and there are no third-parties to corroborate this type of testimony.

The plaintiff in this action, Sandra McPhee, testified that she and her husband had not had sex since their honeymoon in 1979. Unfortunately, Ms. McPhee forgot that she had two children during the course of her marriage. She later testified after her memory was refreshed that she and her husband had not had sexual relations since December, 2001. When questioned whether she had asked her husband to have sex with her since then, her response was “no”.

Justice Bruno dismissed Ms. McPhee’s case. He ruled that she failed to establish constructive abandonment by her testimony. He stated, “the plaintiff did not offer any credible evidence that the defendant’s refusal was unjustified, willful and continued despite repeated requests to resume sexual relations.”

New No-Fault Divorce Law Eliminates This Problem

The new no-fault divorce law in the State of New York only requires that a party plead that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage for a period in excess of 6 months. The pleadings to this no-fault divorce cause of action are simple. The testimony simply has to be that the parties have had a breakdown in their marriage that is irretrievable and the breakdown has lasted in excess of 6 months.

Ms. McPhee is Fortunate

Since the new law went into effect on October 12, 2010, Ms. McPhee can immediately start a new divorce case based on the irretrievable breakdown of her marriage. This time her case won’t be dismissed!

NY and Long Island Divorce Lawyers

The Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo has been handling divorce matters for more than 30 years. We represent our clients with regard to issues involving child custody, child support, fathers’ rights, visitation, separation agreements, orders of protection, child abuse and child neglect. Should you need a divorce lawyer, contact us at 516-561-6645; 718-350-2802 or 1-800-344-6431.

  • banner-changes
  • image5
  • image6
  • image7