Narrative Opinion Summary
In a series of orders and judgments issued by the Supreme Court of New York County, several key decisions were made regarding child custody, support payments, and legal representation for the children involved. The plaintiff was awarded a judgment of $53,600 for maintenance and child support arrears, requiring the defendant to cover all outstanding expert fees and costs for psychological evaluations. The court affirmed the appointment of a new Law Guardian, with fees to be paid by the defendant. The defendant's motion for recusal of the judge due to alleged bias was denied, with the court noting that such a motion requires clear evidence of abuse of discretion, which was not present in this case. Furthermore, the defendant's request to withhold support payments pending a visitation hearing was rejected. The court underscored that support obligations must be maintained until a hearing resolves the issue of the children's refusal to visit with the defendant. The court ultimately affirmed all previous orders, including those regarding the discharge of the guardian ad litem and the referral of fee matters to a Referee, while dismissing other contentions by the defendant as lacking merit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appointment and Responsibility for Law Guardian Feessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant was held responsible for the payment of the Law Guardian's fees, as affirmed by the court.
Reasoning: Additionally, a May 16, 1995 order discharged the guardian ad litem and appointed Robert Dobrish, Esq. as Law Guardian for the children, with the defendant responsible for the payment of his fees—this order was also affirmed.
Judgment for Maintenance and Child Support Arrearssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court awarded the plaintiff a judgment for maintenance and child support arrears, requiring the defendant to pay outstanding expert fees and for psychological evaluations.
Reasoning: The court granted the plaintiff a judgment of $53,600 for maintenance and child support arrears, requiring the defendant to pay all outstanding expert fees and for previously ordered psychological evaluations.
Recusal Motion and Judicial Biassubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the defendant's recusal motion, emphasizing that recusal based on alleged judicial bias requires clear abuse of discretion, which was not demonstrated.
Reasoning: The court noted that recusal motions based on alleged judicial bias during adjudication require a clear abuse of discretion to be overturned.
Visitation Rights and Support Paymentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the defendant cannot withhold maintenance or child support payments pending a hearing on the children's refusal to see the defendant.
Reasoning: The court emphasized that until the hearing determines the legitimacy of the children's refusal to see the defendant, the defendant cannot unilaterally withhold maintenance or child support payments.