Timothy M Tippins

November 01, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins writes that in the play, "Man of La Mancha," Don Quixote's squire, Sancho, sings the following lyrical paean to his hero, "I like him, I really like him. Don't ask me for why or wherefore, 'Cause I don't have a single good 'Because' or 'therefore'!" Sancho's song captures the essence of an often-overlooked bias that can impact on the perceptions and conclusions of custody evaluators.

By Timothy M. Tippins

13 minute read

March 17, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, a special counsel in contested custody cases and an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, writes that if a parent makes a good faith allegation of abuse or neglect and triggers an investigation which finds no substantiating evidence, it is almost certain that the other parent will bolster his or her arguments for custody with a claim that this was an attempt to alienate the child. On the other hand, if the concerned parent does not act, he or she may be leaving the child at risk. New legislation aims to at least loosen the strictures of this catch-22.

By Timothy M. Tippins

13 minute read

March 04, 2010 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, an adjunct professor at Albany Law School, writes that proper application of the equitable distribution law has long been recognized as requiring careful adherence to an orderly three-step process of (1) classification, (2) valuation, and (3) distribution or division of the marital assets.

By Timothy M. Tippins

11 minute read

September 01, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, writes that although the Court of Appeals appears poised to deal with the use of experts to introduce into evidence otherwise inadmissible hearsay as a basis of the expert's testimony, the decades-long discourse on the issue reveals it to be a bona fide conundrum that defies easy or elegant resolution.

By Timothy M. Tippins

12 minute read

May 05, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, writes that day after day, year-in and year-out, forensic custody evaluators file their reports with the courts. Those documents are typically submitted several months, sometimes a year or more, before trial. They invariably are replete with multiple tiers of hearsay. He begins an exploration of the many evidentiary implications that these hearsay-laden reports present to the court and to the practitioner.

By Timothy M. Tippins

12 minute read

November 04, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his Matrimonial Practice column, Timothy M. Tippins discusses the formula of the new temporary maintenance law and highlights some of the features and incongruities of the new statute that are likely to cause problems in its application.

By Timothy M. Tippins

10 minute read

July 02, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, a practicing attorney and an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, writes the value of most assets is dynamic, not static, and, as recent economic history has demonstrated so dramatically, the difference of even a few months can have a remarkable impact on the value of a marital estate.

By Timothy M. Tippins

16 minute read

May 07, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By Timothy M. Tippins

8 minute read

September 03, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, a practicing attorney and an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, writes: If future courts are to apply the decisions of today as the precedent of tomorrow, it is essential that those decisions establish and explain the principles which are their foundation. The recent decisions in Mahoney-Buntzman v. Buntzman and Johnson v. Chapin from the Court of Appeals raise the question of whether the equitable distribution law - as judicially developed - is increasingly a disconnected series of results or products unanchored to well-established underlying principles.

By Timothy M. Tippins

13 minute read

January 02, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, a consultant and special counsel in contested custody cases, writes that many of today's psychoanalytic practitioners embrace the view that the subjective thoughts and feelings of the examiner "provide important information" not about the examiner but about the individual who is being examined. Measured against the legal system's need for demonstrably valid knowledge, this seems to be palpable quackery of an astoundingly dangerous sort.

By Timothy M. Tippins

11 minute read