by Andy Chen | Apr 20, 2024 | New York, Statutes... and stuff
Previously, I blogged about the residency requirements one has to satisfy in order to file a divorce, separation, or annulment case in the state of New York. Today, I’m going to go over another requirement you have to satisfy when filing a divorce case in New York, namely the grounds or reasons for divorce. New York’s residency requirement is described in New York Domestic Relations Law section 230 and is termed a “residency requirements” because, in most states, the requirement generally relates to living in the state in some way. The grounds requirement, though, for divorce in New York relates more to what occurred between the couple and generally involves more complicated questions than just ‘Did the parties live in New York?’ The grounds requirement for divorce in New York is described in New York Domestic Relations Law section 170. There are seven possible grounds. The plaintiff is the spouse filing for divorce. As with a generic “residency requirement”, a plaintiff need only satisfy one of the seven, but each one of the seven may have several components that all need to be met before the ground itself can be invoked. As with my residency requirement post, I’ll indicate each of the components with a letter (e.g. (a), (b), etc). (a) The defendant spouse has treated the plaintiff spouse in a cruel and inhuman way such that (b) this treatment endangers the physical and mental well being of the plaintiff so much that it (c) makes it unsafe or improper for plaintiff to continue cohabiting with defendant; (a) The abandonment of the plaintiff by the defendant for a period...
by Andy Chen | Jul 2, 2023 | Family Law, New York, Statutes... and stuff
I’ve been licensed to practice law in New York since 2012. Unfortunately, I do not maintain an office in New York. This means that I cannot take clients who live in New York due to the NY Court of Appeals‘ 2015 ruling interpreting NY Judiciary Law section 470 in the case of Schoenefeld v. State of New York, et al. That appears to be changing, though. Legislation has been passed by both the New York State Senate and, as of June 7, 2023, the New York State Assembly to repeal Judicial Law Section 470. Stay tuned for updates. Because Section 470 is still in effect, I can’t practice law in the state of New York. However, what I’m going to discuss in this blog post and all my NY blog posts that follow is information any member of the public can look up for themselves. I offer no opinion on whether the particular statute or case I go over is advisable or prudent for their particular situation. My hope is that, even though my blog posts are purely factual, my post will give the enterprising reader an idea or plant a seed for further research that they would otherwise not have had. Put simply: after reading my factual post, maybe you can do more research that didn’t occur to you before and, hopefully, be better off for it. In this post on the laws of the state of New York, I’m going to talk about the residency requirements for a divorce. A residency requirement is the basic idea that in order to file for divorce in a given state...
by Andy Chen | Jun 29, 2023 | California, Statutes... and stuff
In today’s post, I’m going to go over what is often referred to as the “Pink Tax” or the practice of charging more for products aimed at women simply even when the same product for men, for instance, has a lower price. In September of 2022, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1287 which became effective as of January 1, 2023. AB 1287 added a new section — Section 51.14 — to the California Civil Code. As always, I encourage to actually look up the entire text of the statute section. I am only going to point out the major parts of Section 51.14. The main part, in my opinion, is Section 51.14(b), which says: “A person, firm, partnership, company, corporation, or business shall not charge a different price for any two goods that are substantially similar if those goods are priced differently based on the gender of the individuals for whom the goods are marketed and intended.” If you’re wondering what terms like “business” or “substantially similar” mean, that’s described in Section 51.14(a). As an example, “substantially similar” is defined as (1) there being no substantial difference in the materials used to make the item, (2) the intended use of the items are similar, (3) the functional design and features of the items are similar, and (4) the brand of the items is the same or the brands of the items are owned by the same party. I bolded and underlined “and” above to emphasize that (1) to (4) must all be true simultaneously in order for the items to be “substantially similar” within the meaning of...
by Andy Chen | Jun 24, 2021 | California, Feel good series, Statutes... and stuff
This past week, I came across several memes on Facebook about what you’re supposed to do in California if you encounter a dog or other animal locked inside a vehicle with the windows up. The concern, of course, is that the interior of the car will overheat on a summer day and the animal will die. Being the legal research nerd that I am, I took it upon myself to look up the relevant and bore — er, I mean, share — that law with all of you. It’s also an opportunity for me to share a lot of the dog photos I’ve accumulated over the years. Anyway, there are two questions I’ll answer: What California law prohibits leaving a dog or other animal in a hot car? What California laws allow a bystander who sees a dog locked in a hot car to break the window of that car to rescue that dog or animal? #1: What law prohibits leaving a dog in a hot car? The relevant California law here is Section 597.7 of California’s Penal Code. Section 597.7 has a lot of subsections to it so I would encourage you to read the actual text of the statute if you have a situation that involves an animal having been left in a hot vehicle. As I’ve mentioned before, my posts are ultimately just my paraphrasing of the relevant law. I’ve included links in this post and in all my other posts to the relevant code sections in California should you want to do your own research. Anyway, the subsection that addresses the leaving of animals in...
by Andy Chen | Jun 21, 2021 | California, Statutes... and stuff
In this post, I’m going to talk about California Living Trusts and specifically a very common situation that I encounter relating to trustees and beneficiaries. The basic scenario is something like this: Elderly parents who made a living trust years ago, but are now too infirm to really handle things themselves so someone else is serving as trustee of the Living Trust. That trustee is a lay person and, basically, is doing something incorrectly. This incorrect thing that the trustee is doing can vary greatly. On the one hand, it might be that the trustee is doing everything properly, but they just haven’t filled out the right forms simply because they didn’t know that they had to do that. Correcting the problem (e.g. filling out the right forms) is easy. On the other hand, it’s also extremely common for the trustee to knowingly and purposely do something incorrectly. In other words, the fact that the trustee is not a lawyer or has never been a trustee before is not an excuse. They should have known regardless that what they were doing was wrong. A very common example of this is taking money from the trust for the trustee’s own personal use. The beneficiaries to the trust suspect that the trustee is doing something improper because the trustee refuses to talk to them, won’t let them see the trust document itself, etc., but don’t know for sure because the trustee is being so tight-lipped about everything. The legal question, then, is basically what rights to the beneficiaries have in such a situation to hold the trustee accountable? The Root Cause...
by Andy Chen | Jun 17, 2021 | California, Statutes... and stuff
I was recently called for jury duty. For those of you wondering whether lawyers actually get called for jury duty, the answer is a most definite yes. I was ultimately not selected to be on the jury, but I did have to sit through two days of voir dire. Seeing it form the juror’s perspective was exciting given that I’m usually the one doing the voir dire in a setting like that. Anyway, the experience of having been through that gives rise to the topic of today’s post which is “What qualifications do you have to meet in California in order to be a juror?” Like with many things I go over on this blog, there’s an app for that… oops, sorry, what I actually meant to say was “There’s a statute for that.” In this case, the statute in question is Section 203 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which states: “(a) All persons are eligible and qualified to be prospective trial jurors, except the following: (1) Persons who are not citizens of the United States. (2) Persons who are less than 18 years of age. (3) Persons who are not domiciliaries of the State of California, as determined pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 2020) of Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Elections Code. (4) Persons who are not residents of the jurisdiction wherein they are summoned to serve. (5) Persons who have been convicted of malfeasance in office and whose civil rights have not been restored. (6) Persons who are not possessed of sufficient knowledge of the English language, provided that no person shall be deemed incompetent solely because of...
