Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Decisions of Interest
With Alleged Harasser Already in Jail, Protective Order Has No Purpose
A woman lost her bid to obtain an order of protection prohibiting her incarcerated husband from contacting her because, as he was imprisoned and posed no danger to her, there was no need for one. In the Matter of Zolnowski v. Pelosi, O-06073-11, NYLJ 1202509424527, at *1 (Fam., SUF, Decided July 28, 2011) (Genchi, J.).
The respondent is currently serving a 28-year-to-life sentence for murder and other crimes. He and the petitioner had a child together in 2004, and they were married in 2006 in the Clinton Correctional facility. In April 2011 the wife filed a family offense petition, alleging harassment, aggravated harassment, menacing and reckless endangerment. The acts complained of ' stemming from the respondent's attempts to communicate with the petitioner by mail, telephone, texts and through third-party contact ' allegedly occurred between December 2009 and January 2010 and again in October 2010 during conjugal visits at the Elmira Correctional facility. According to the petitioner, the phone calls have now stopped because the respondent has been moved to a tighter security incarceration situation due to the acts that she now complains of; however, she is still receiving communications from him by mail, through third parties.
In deciding the case, Judge Joan M. Gnechi observed that Article 8 of the Family Court Act lists three purposes for its existence: 1) to attempt to stop violence; 2) to end family disruption; and 3) to obtain protection from domestic violence. F.C.A. ' 812.2 (b). None of these aims could be advanced by the issuance of a protective order in this case, concluded the judge. “It is clear to this Court that while the respondent is incarcerated for 28 years to life, the threat of a jail sentence for violation of a Family Court order of protection is not a deterrent to the respondent, a convicted murderer,” stated Judge Gnechi. “Unless the petitioner decides to continue her conjugal visits with the respondent in the future, there is no purpose to be served, except to allow the respondent time off from solitary confinement, to litigating this petition.” Instead, said the judge, if the petitioner continues to have problems with the respondent, she should let prison officials know about it so they can further discipline him, as they said they would do in a letter sent to her in January 2011.
With Alleged Harasser Already in Jail, Protective Order Has No Purpose
A woman lost her bid to obtain an order of protection prohibiting her incarcerated husband from contacting her because, as he was imprisoned and posed no danger to her, there was no need for one. In the Matter of Zolnowski v. Pelosi, O-06073-11, NYLJ 1202509424527, at *1 (Fam., SUF, Decided July 28, 2011) (Genchi, J.).
The respondent is currently serving a 28-year-to-life sentence for murder and other crimes. He and the petitioner had a child together in 2004, and they were married in 2006 in the Clinton Correctional facility. In April 2011 the wife filed a family offense petition, alleging harassment, aggravated harassment, menacing and reckless endangerment. The acts complained of ' stemming from the respondent's attempts to communicate with the petitioner by mail, telephone, texts and through third-party contact ' allegedly occurred between December 2009 and January 2010 and again in October 2010 during conjugal visits at the Elmira Correctional facility. According to the petitioner, the phone calls have now stopped because the respondent has been moved to a tighter security incarceration situation due to the acts that she now complains of; however, she is still receiving communications from him by mail, through third parties.
In deciding the case, Judge Joan M. Gnechi observed that Article 8 of the Family Court Act lists three purposes for its existence: 1) to attempt to stop violence; 2) to end family disruption; and 3) to obtain protection from domestic violence. F.C.A. ' 812.2 (b). None of these aims could be advanced by the issuance of a protective order in this case, concluded the judge. “It is clear to this Court that while the respondent is incarcerated for 28 years to life, the threat of a jail sentence for violation of a Family Court order of protection is not a deterrent to the respondent, a convicted murderer,” stated Judge Gnechi. “Unless the petitioner decides to continue her conjugal visits with the respondent in the future, there is no purpose to be served, except to allow the respondent time off from solitary confinement, to litigating this petition.” Instead, said the judge, if the petitioner continues to have problems with the respondent, she should let prison officials know about it so they can further discipline him, as they said they would do in a letter sent to her in January 2011.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?