Appellate Division Upholds Summary Judgment for Divorce
November 3, 2014
Last week, Rapaport Law Firm obtained the first Appellate Division, First Department decision recognizing that the only prerequisite for obtaining a judgment of divorce under D.R.L. §170(7) (irretrievable breakdown) is a statement by the plaintiff that the parties' marital relationship is irretrievably broken. The First Department upheld the decision by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Deborah A. Kaplan, in which Judge Kaplan dismissed the defendant-husband's attack against the parties' marital separation agreement. Judge Kaplan – and now the Appellate Division – held that disputes arising after the signing of a marital separation agreement do not hinder a trial court from issuing a divorce judgment. Read more about Rapaport Law Firm's ground-breaking victory at DivorceNY.com.
Telecommuting: A Trend in Reverse? Marc Rapaport on 'The American Law Journal'
More than 3 million people telecommute for their jobs. But some big corporations, such as Yahoo and Best Buy, are bucking the trend. Is telecommuting a trend in reverse? Or has the train already left the station? Attorney Marc Rapaport joins host Christopher Naughton to discuss the issue on The American Law Journal. Click here to watch the video.
Marc Rapaport's Article, "What To Do If You're The Victim Of Pregnancy Discrimination", Featured on TheLaw.tv
Marc Rapaport's article regarding federal and state laws that prohibit pregnancy discrimination in the workplace was recently featured on the legal news website, TheLaw.tv. In his article, Marc discusses practical measures that victims of pregnancy discrimionation should take to protect their legal rights under federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
Read the full article: What To Do If You're The Victim Of Pregnancy Discrimination.
Rapaport Law Firm Summer Intern Wins Youth Leadership Award
May 8, 2013 — Last summer, Rapaport Law Firm initiated a student internship program to inculcate skills among young scholars. Our program has already yielded demonstrative results for its first participant, Thomas 0'Connor. This month, Mr. O'Connor was awarded the Putnam County Youth Leadership Award based on his experiences and contributions with our firm. In his acceptance speech, Mr. O'Connor recounted how he successfully rose to the challenge of navigating the New York court system.
United States v. Clemens
Rapaport Law Firm Successfully
Defends Confidentiality of New York
Divorce Records in Clemens Perjury Trial
Attorneys at the Rapaport Law Firm mounted an aggressive and successful campaign to protect our client's matrimonial records from the tentacles of the Roger Clemens perjury trial. We obtained a Federal Court order upholding the confidentiality of marital proceedings under New York Law.
- May 02, 2012 - Pettitte now half-sure Clemens took HGH
- May 10, 2012 - Cashman arrives to take stand in Rocket trial
- May 02, 2012 - Pettitte: He might have been mistaken about Clemens
Marc Rapaport on ABC News regarding the Britney Spears Child Custody Case, July 18, 2008
"The worst possible position a litigant in a child custody case can be in is when they can't control their behavior during the case itself. It's one thing to walk into court with a messy history [and] quite another when you can't get yourself under control during the proceedings," said family law attorney Marc Rapaport. "And that's how she dug such a deep hole for herself in this custody dispute. At the end of the day, K-Fed, even though he wasn't perfect either, was destined to get custody."
Marinaro v. Greenberg Traurig LLP
We represented Yasmin Marinaro with regard to her claims for discrimination and retaliatory discharge against the law firm of Greenberg Traurig LLP. Ms. Marinaro, who was an executive assistant with the firm, alleged that she was the victim of sexual harassment and retaliation.
- Lawsuit of the Day: Marinaro v. Greenberg Traurig LLP
AboveTheLaw.com; January, 2007
When Twelve Weeks is Not Enough: FMLA, ADA and NYCHRL
by Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
Most plaintiffs' employment lawyers are all too familiar with the stinginess of the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), both in terms of the substantive protections that it offers, and the damages that it makes available. Like decaffeinated coffee or nonalcoholic beer, the FMLA can, at times, seem a bit too weak to get excited about. The unavailability of punitive or emotional distress damages under the FMLA is particularly frustrating, given the seemingly modest burdens that the law typically imposes on employers.
Ready to Punch a Time Clock
by Kristen French
Marc A Rapaport Quoted in article on RegisteredRep.com: "They changed [the Fair Labor Standards Act] in a way that was probably thought to be pro-employer," he says. "Sometimes the language in the law has unintended consequences. It's amazing how often this occurs," he says.
Marc A. Rapaport on Russian television - NTV
Ask the Expert: Interview with Marc Rapaport
Giray v. Cruey, New York Law Journal(published in the NY Law Journal on 1/13/2003)
Practice Area: Family
Outcome: Order directing cancellation of pre-application child support arrears.
Description: Despite New York's statutory prohibitions prohibiting courts from cancelling pre-application child support arrears, our client's arrears were vacated, in their entirety, based on the Court's determination that there were extreme and unique circumstances. This case is one of only two instances in which a New York court has cancelled pre-application arrears.
To view the entire decision, click here.
Mena v. Key Food
Mena v. Key Food Stores Cooperative Inc. et al.,
2003 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 231 and New York Law Journal; March 31, 2003
In this widely-publicized discrimination suit, plaintiffs alleged that obscenities, foul language, racial slurs and epithets directed at women and African Americans were common parlance at the Key Food offices. Approximately one year before this law suit was instituted, our client, a Key Food employee, sought our advice regarding the legality of taping the defendants' harassing and inappropriate comments.
Subsequently, the explosive and obscene comments captured on the tape recordings were aired on New York's major television stations, and in print media. In an important decision, the New York State Supreme Court (Kings County) upheld both the taping and the publicity, and rejected the defendants' assertions that disciplinary rules were violated.
Key Food Case Articles:
- Race Bias Suit Hits Key Food -
NY Amsterdam News;June 6, 2002
- Lawyers May Instruct on Secret Taping -
The National Law Journal;April 28, 2003
- Employees Say Tapes Show Racism -
NY WABC News, June 5, 2002
- Supervisor Fired After Report -
NY WABC News, June 6, 2002
- More Alleged Racism At Key Food - NY WABC News, June 10, 2002
Viglianco v. Herbst, et al.(published in the New York Jury Verdict Reporter)
During the course of her employment with the defendants, Ms. Viglianco, an attorney, was subjected to repeated insults and slurs concerning her national heritage. In addition, during her pregnancy, Ms. Viglianco was harassed by her supervisor, warned that she was required to return to work immediately after giving birth, and was assaulted and terminated by her supervisor when she inquired about disability benefits.Our client was awarded monetary damages after a three-day trial.
Peralta v. Chromium Plating(published in the New York Law Journal)
Ms. Peralta was granted summary judgment on a Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim. During the case, defendants admitted that they terminated Ms. Peralta from her employment solely because of her pregnancy.
Gibli v. KadoshGibli v. Kadosh, 279 A.D.2d 235 (2000) (New York Law Journal; Class Action Reporter)
In this dental malpractice action, our client signed a release approximately one month after a surgical procedure that involved the extraction of a third molar. During that procedure, our client's lingual nerve was severed, causing permanent and irreparable parasthesia. The Appellate Division held that the validity of the release was for the jury to decide. After a five-day trial, our client received an unusually high verdict for a dental malpractice claim.