Elliott Scheinberg

December 01, 2022 | New York Law Journal

The essence of this article is who may raise such sanctioned arguments first time on appeal, the appellant, the respondent, or both? We digress from the answer to this question to examine several sanctioned categories.

By Elliott Scheinberg

15 minute read

October 27, 2022 | New York Law Journal

"When faced with a disqualification motion, 'the court's function is to take such action as is necessary to insure the proper representation of the parties and fairness in the conduct of the litigation.'"

By Elliott Scheinberg

14 minute read

September 09, 2022 | New York Law Journal

Finality of litigation is interwoven into the timeliness of 2221(e)(2)-motion filings. This is the theme in 'Opalinski'.

By Elliott Scheinberg

10 minute read

July 21, 2022 | New York Law Journal

'Liu' adds a little known arrow into the quiver of parents who have petitioned Family Court for child support and are then, not uncommonly, relegated to delayed determinations beyond statutory timelines.

By Elliott Scheinberg

15 minute read

June 28, 2022 | New York Law Journal

Headline-capturing instances are extraordinarily rare and do not merit the wholesale condemnation of New York's overwhelming body of law vis-à-vis child protection.

By Elliott Scheinberg

9 minute read

June 23, 2022 | New York Law Journal

ASll avenues of public policy appear to render an infidelity clause unenforceable in New York.

By Elliott Scheinberg

15 minute read

June 22, 2022 | New York Law Journal

New York includes adultery as a ground for divorce. Would an infidelity clause be enforceable under New York law? The analysis here establishes that an infidelity clause would not be enforceable pursuant to public policy under a variety of theories.

By Elliott Scheinberg

16 minute read

May 12, 2022 | New York Law Journal

The specter of finality continues to haunt the hallowed halls of appealability at all appellate levels.

By Elliott Scheinberg

17 minute read

March 31, 2022 | New York Law Journal

In 'Mussbacher v. Mussmacher', the Fourth Department preserved its uniqueness amongst the Departments, albeit on unstable, contradictory reasoning without any reference to CPLR 213(2), in properly restricting enforcement of a marital agreement to six years of retroactive claims, irrespective of whether pursued by action or by motion.

By Elliott Scheinberg

16 minute read

March 30, 2022 | New York Law Journal

The Fourth Department continues to stand alone, albeit this time on unstable and contradictory reasoning, in correctly restricting enforcement to six years where enforcement has been sought by motion.

By Elliott Scheinberg

13 minute read