Representative Cases

1. In re Alexander D., 45 A.D.3d 264 (1st Dept. 2007)

1

In re Alexander D., 45 A.D.3d 264 (1st Dept. 2007)

S&G successfully appealed a Family Court decision that the parents’ care of their special-needs child was inadequate, and obtained a dismissal of the Family Court proceeding.

2. Michael McC. v. Manuela A., 48 A.D.3d 91 (1st Dept. 2007)

2

Michael McC. v. Manuela A., 48 A.D.3d 91 (1st Dept. 2007)

In an international custody dispute in which the mother had absconded with the child to Italy, the Family Court dismissed the father’s petition for custody on the grounds that the court did not have jurisdiction to make a decision. On appeal, S&G obtained a reversal and a determination that the case had to be heard by the New York courts.

3. Colucci v. Colucci, 54 A.D.3d 710 (2d Dept. 2008)

3

Colucci v. Colucci, 54 A.D.3d 710 (2d Dept. 2008)

After the trial court held that a father did not have to pay 100% of the college expenses for the parties’ children as provided in the marital settlement agreement, S&G obtained a reversal of that order in the appellate court. Per the agreement, the father was required to pay 100% of the children’s college education expenses.

4. Lubit v. Lubit, 65 A.D.3d 954 (1st Dept. 2009)

4

Lubit v. Lubit, 65 A.D.3d 954 (1st Dept. 2009)

In a highly contested custody dispute, S&G obtained an award of custody of the parties’ three children to the mother and successfully defended against the father’s challenge to that award on appeal.

5. A.K. v. A.S., 32 Misc. 3d 431 (Fam. Ct. 2011)

5

A.K. v. A.S., 32 Misc. 3d 431 (Fam. Ct. 2011)

S&G successfully obtained the summary dismissal of a father’s custody petition prior to trial, where the parents continued to reside together and to co-parent the children, and the father made no showing that would indicate the children were at risk or that their needs were not being met by the mother. The Family Court held that, in such circumstances, it lacked authority to interfere with or regulate the internal affairs of the home.

6. Perel v. Gonzalez, 105 A.D.3d 552 (1st Dept. 2013)

6

Perel v. Gonzalez, 105 A.D.3d 552 (1st Dept. 2013)

S&G successfully ensured that a child support order was based on all of a father’s income including the full market value of his employer-provided apartment.

7. Hollis v. O’Driscoll, 739 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2014)

7

Hollis v. O’Driscoll, 739 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2014)

In an international custody dispute under the Hague Convention, S&G successfully secured a final order directing a mother, who had abducted the parties’ child from New Zealand in violation of father’s custody rights, to return the child to her home country where the father subsequently obtained custody.

8. In re Rivera, 130 A.D.3d 932 (2d Dept. 2015)

8

In re Rivera, 130 A.D.3d 932 (2d Dept. 2015)

In a complex probate litigation, a husband who had signed a divorce settlement agreement and renounced his right to inherit from his wife, sought to become the executor of his wife’s estate and to inherit from her. S&G successfully reversed a Surrogate’s Court order in favor of the husband and obtained a holding that the husband was bound by the divorce settlement agreement.

9. Charlotte E. v. Alan P., 145 A.D.3d 474 (1st Dept. 2016)

9

Charlotte E. v. Alan P., 145 A.D.3d 474 (1st Dept. 2016)

During an ongoing trial to enforce the father’s obligation to support his severely disabled daughter pursuant to a divorce judgment, the mother was unable to appear because the daughter’s caretaker was suddenly unavailable. When the court then dismissed her case, S&G appealed, obtained a reversal, and the mother’s claim for child support was reinstated and ultimately successful.

10. Eldad LL. v. Dannai MM., 155 A.D.3d 1336 (3d Dept. 2017)

10

Eldad LL. v. Dannai MM., 155 A.D.3d 1336 (3d Dept. 2017)

A mother appealed an award of custody to the father, claiming that Israeli courts should determine custody since she intended to relocate there with the child. In the appeal, S&G preserved the father’s custody of the child and defeated the mother’s efforts to move with the child to Israel in violation of the father’s custody rights.

11. Matter of Grover S., 176 A.D.3d 828 (2d Dept. 2019)

11

Matter of Grover S., 176 A.D.3d 828 (2d Dept. 2019)

In an acrimonious child protective proceeding in which the father was accused of misconduct based on charges instigated by the child’s mother, S&G obtained an order from the appellate court reversing a lower court determination that had denied his right to depose nonparties and obtain document disclosure to defend himself.