The Law Offices of Jon Michael Probstein

Since 1977, the Law Offices of Jon Michael Probstein has been representing and assisting people and businesses in all matters.

Admitted to practice in New York and the federal courts (Southern and Eastern District) as well as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Probstein is special counsel to law firms in Los Angeles and New York, as well as operating his own practice in Nassau County. In addition, he serves as a Part 137 Arbitrator on attorney/client fee disputes and as an Arbitrator in Small Claims, District Court, Nassau County. A qualified Part 36 Guardian, Attorney, etc. in Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, he is also a registered attorney with the New York State Department of Labor for Unemployment Insurance claims and an accredited attorney for claims for veterans’ benefits before the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Mr. Probstein has performed pro bono work for the Volunteer Lawyers Project - Nassau/Suffolk Law Services, Inc., The Safe Center (formerly the Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence) and the Nassau County Bar Association, where he is also a member of the Lawyers Assistance Program Committee and the recipient of the 2015 Thomas Maligno Pro Bono Attorney of the Year award. Currently, he is President of the Levittown Chamber of Commerce.

Website: http://www.jmpattorney.com/index.html
Follow:

Latest from The Law Offices of Jon Michael Probstein - Page 2

https-1-bp-blogspot-com-4jmsqvhgjq4-wpvdzu54ohi-aaaaaaaabou-9wnnn1575be4qsapyyptbwtsi5ytsqltqcpcbgayycw-s640-pn-jpg
Washiradusit v Athonvarangkul, 2020 NY Slip Op 03562, Decided on June 24, 2020, Appellate Division, Second Department: “The parties were married in February 2001 and subsequently purchased certain real property in Woodside (hereinafter the property). Prior to the closing, the parties entered into a “Property Agreement” dated November 18, 2002 (hereinafter the postnuptial agreement). The postnuptial agreement required the parties to put the property up for sale “no later than 90 days after filing by…
https-upload-wikimedia-org-wikipedia-commons-thumb-8-87-purple_ribbon-svg-2000px-purple_ribbon-svg-png
Did the Mother preserve her claim for appeal purposes that the court failed to consider the effects of domestic violence on the best interests of the parties two young children in granting father primary physical custody, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1) (a)? See the dissent in Jesse Cole v. Samantha Cole, Appellant. No. 67 SSM 8, New York State, Court of Appeals, Decided: June 23, 2020: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2020/Jun20/SSM8mem20-Decision.pdf. From http://jmpattorney.blogspot.com/…
https-upload-wikimedia-org-wikipedia-en-0-09-diamond_ring-jpg
Rambod v Tazeh, 2020 NY Slip Op 03382, Decided on June 17, 2020 ,Appellate Division, Second Department; “The plaintiff purchased a diamond ring for the defendant soon after they became engaged. Thereafter, the parties terminated their relationship and cancelled the wedding. They then had a number of conversations about various sums of monies expended with regard to the wedding as well as the return of various pieces of personal property, including the diamond engagement ring.…
https-1-bp-blogspot-com-fo0lsfzfs2k-wp032jcofei-aaaaaaaabp4-m25zwma3i5krharefihpm-djwwfcarwgacpcbgayycw-s640-jmplaw2-png
New York State Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks on Thursday issued new guidance for residential and commercial eviction proceedings in the state, delaying hearings in new cases as well as the service of eviction warrants at least until July 7. The memorandum allows for the filing of new cases starting Monday, corresponding with the expiration of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s blanket eviction moratorium. Highlights of the memorandum include: -Commencement documents must be filed by NYSECF…
https-p1-pxfuel-com-preview-231-256-886-breakup-divorce-separation-relationship-royalty-free-thumbnail-jpg
One of the hardest things to let go of following the end of a relationship is anger. But that can have consequences as this case illustrates. Matter of Richardson v Hawker, 2020 NY Slip Op 03392, Decided on June 17, 2020 ,Appellate Division, Second Department: “The petitioner filed a family offense petition seeking an order of protection against the appellant, her former boyfriend. During the fact-finding hearing, the petitioner testified that the appellant showed up…
https-cdn-pixabay-com-photo-2018-04-12-04-01-argument-3312463_960_720-png
Some non-custodial parents push for joint legal custody/decision making when their real motive is to use it as a veto power. When parties cannot get along and cooperate, one parent should be deemed the sole legal custodial parent and decision maker. Matter of Lett v Green, 2020 NY Slip Op 03229, Decided on June 10, 2020, Appellate Division, Second Department: “The mother and the father, who were never married to each other, are the parents…
It would appear that the two co-guardians did not get along while the ward was alive and the dispute continued after the ward’s death. Although the court talks about a several hour delay in locating and transporting the ward’s remains, the facts below indicate that it may have been a one day delay as the ward died at about 6am on July 20 and the correct funeral home had the remains on July 21. Hanna…
https-1-bp-blogspot-com-fo0lsfzfs2k-wp032jcofei-aaaaaaaabp4-m25zwma3i5krharefihpm-djwwfcarwgacpcbgayycw-s640-jmplaw2-png
Reading between the lines here, there is a pending motion to relocate and if granted, the non-custodial parent with supervised visitation will have significant parenting time concerns. A.S. v. H.R., NYLJ June 12, 2020, Date filed: 2020-06-05,  Court: Supreme Court, New York, Judge: Justice Matthew Cooper, Case Number: 306655/2011: “Following a custody trial in this high-conflict almost ten-year divorce case, the court awarded full custody of the parties’ child to the plaintiff-father and granted the…
https-1-bp-blogspot-com-q7v8qtoojw4-wpaczma18ai-aaaaaaaabo8-yl1m42vdcuydsuuzvrebjyhjlbj10cxsqcpcbgayycw-s640-untitled-png
An excellent discussion of the who, what, whys, etc. of acceleration and de-acceleration. CHRISTIANA TRUST v. BARUA, 2020 NY Slip Op 3095 – NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2020: “II. The Effect of De-acceleration Upon the Statute of Limitations The parties do not dispute that the controlling statute of limitations for breach of contract actions is six years (see CPLR 213[4]; Milone v US Bank N.A., 164 AD3d 145, 151; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. …