K.M. v. C.R.
Wife Denied Rescission/Modification of Custody Provisions in Parties' Separation Agreement
July 11, 2017 at 12:00 AM
2 minute read
Justice Cheryl Joseph
The parties entered into a separation agreement in 2014. Husband sued for a conversion divorce in 2016. An order of protection was issued against wife later in 2016 in connection with a criminal matter. She sought rescission or modification of the agreement pertaining to custody and parenting time in a plenary action, among other things. Husband moved for dismissal of the plenary action. The court dismissed wife's amended complaint as untimely, but noted despite same, her claim for rescission of the agreement would be analyzed on substantive grounds. It noted the parties have abided by the custodial and parenting access provisions of the agreement since its execution, and despite the Family Court litigation—in which the parties were involved in family offense proceedings—they continued to abide by the terms until wife was charged with criminal contempt for allegedly violating the order of protection. The court noted the timing of wife's action—within 24 hours of issuance of the protection order—implied an underlying retaliatory motive, and an attempt to implicitly control husband's time with the children. Yet, she failed to persuade the court the children's best interest would not be served under the agreement, dismissing the claim for modification.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhen Dealing With Child Abuse Cases, Attorneys Need to Know How Children Perceive Time
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Special Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
- 2Appeals Court Rejects Trump Attempt to Delay Friday Sentencing
- 3Strategic Pricing: Setting the Billable Hour at the Intersection of Psychology, Feedback and Growth
- 4'Taking the Best' of Both Firms, Ballard Spahr and Lane Powell Officially Merge
- 5Florida Supreme Court Publicly Reprimands Miami Founding Partner
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250