C.G. v. R.G.
| Decision Date | 28 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 51073/2005.,51073/2005. |
| Citation | 9 N.Y.S.3d 592 (Table) |
| Parties | C.G., Plaintiff, v. R.G., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Victor Mevorah, Esquire, Garden City, N.Y. for Plaintiff.
Self represented, for Husband.
Ralph Porzio, Esquire, Staten Island, NY, for Children.
By Summons filed December 5, 2005, Plaintiff C.G. (“Wife” or “Mother”) commenced this action for divorce against Defendant R.G. (“Husband” or Father”). A Verified Complaint was filed by Wife, then represented by Alison Aplin Esq., and served on or about March 16, 2006. A second Verified Complaint was apparently filed by Wife's second attorney Valarie Van Leer–Greenberg on or about May 9, 2007. After a review of the official Court file, of which the Court takes judicial notice, there is no indication that Husband ever filed an answer to either complaint, or asserted any counterclaims. See Walker v. City of New York, 46 A.D.3d 278, 847 N.Y.S.2d 173 (1st Dept.2007).
The parties were married on March 11, 1990 in a religious ceremony. There are three issue of this marriage: Jo.G.; J.G. and J.L.G. By Consent Order dated December 12, 2006, Defendant Father was granted sole legal and physical custody of Jo.G. as the parties agreed that Father was in the better position to meet Jo.G's psychiatric needs. Plaintiff Mother was granted an Order of Visitation (See Order dated 9/17/08). Jo.G. aged out of the custody jurisdiction of this Court during the pendency of the proceeding. Jo.G., now 21years old, has a reported diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder
, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. A forensic evaluator herein, Stephen Herman, MD, vehemently disagrees with these findings believing that a more accurate diagnosis of schizophrenia is warranted. During the course of these proceedings, Jo.G. has remained in the physical custody of the Father with whom he lives today.
By Consent Order dated December 12, 2006, Mother was granted an Order of Sole Legal and Physical Custody of the children J.G. and J.LG. However in or around March of 2010 Husband made an application for a change in custody which was referred to trial. Husband's application for a change in custody was resolved by on or about March 3, 2011 when he consented to Mother having custody, for a second time. Mother retained physical custody of these children until on or about June 26, 2012 when a mold condition in the marital home resulted in the children changing their residence to that of their Father until such time as the issue was remedied. In addition to mold from water seepage, the waterfront former marital residence also sustained significant damage in Hurricane Sandy including the erosion of a significant portion of the yard.
During its pendency, this case has been assigned to a number of judges and special referees before it was assigned to this Part for trial.1 Throughout the course of this litigation, twenty-seven motions were collectively filed by the parties. Plaintiff Wife was represented by Ms. Allison Aplin Esq. from the commencement of this matrimonial action until March 8, 2007 when Ms. Valerie Van Leer–Greenberg Esq. was substituted in as Plaintiff's attorney.2 Ms. Van Leer–Greenberg represented Wife until June 12, 2009 when she withdraw as counsel alleging that Husband failed to comply with the Court's counsel fee awards to Wife. Plaintiff remained self represented from Ms. Greenberg's withdrawal to February 22, 2010 when this Part appointed Mr. Mitchell Newman Esq. as Wife's attorney for the issues of custody and visitation. On or about November 17, 2010, Mr. Newman made an application to be relieved as Wife's counsel which was granted without opposition. On or about December 3, 2010 Wife hired a privately retained attorney, Mr. Victor Mevorah Esq. Various scheduled trial dates were vacated to allow Mr. Mevorah an opportunity to prepare for trial. In December of 2011, on the eve of trial, Mr. Mevorah moved to be relieved as counsel based on, among other issues, Wife's inability to pay any further legal fees. His application was denied.
Defendant Husband was represented by Mr. Robert Schwartz Esq. at the commencement of this action until October 26, 2006 when he was relieved on consent. Defendant proceeded Pro Se until October 12, 2007, when the law firm of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Freidman, LLP substituted in as counsel. On or about August 6, 2008, this firm was relieved by Defendant based on his alleged inability to pay, subject to various charging and retaining liens. (See Consent to Change Attorney dated August 6, 2008). Husband represented himself until May of 2010 when he retained Ms. Anne–Louise DePalo Esq. Ms. De Paolo was relieved on consent by Order dated January 12, 2011 when Husband claimed he could no longer afford to pay her. Defendant represented himself at trial though he admits that he utilized the services of a “ghost attorney” to assist him with the preparation of documents at various times throughout the proceedings. Throughout this long litigation, Defendant Husband also utilized the representation of a real estate attorney, and at least one other matrimonial attorney.
By Preliminary Conference Order dated February 21, 2006, the parties agreed that Wife would be granted a divorce on the grounds of constructive abandonment. This agreement was further codified in a Short Form Order dated March 21, 2010. On or about January 24, 2006, Defendant Husband was arrested which resulted in a criminal case being commenced against him which was subsequently transferred into the IDV Part (Adams, J). A Temporary Order of Protection was issued in favor of Wife and against Husband. Due in part to the pending criminal case, Husband was ordered to have visits with his daughters supervised by Ms. Diane Hesseman L.M.S.W.
By Order dated April 28, 2006, Dr. Stephen Herman was Ordered by the Court to conduct a forensic evaluation of the parties and subject children with recommendations as to custody and visitation. Dr. Herman's initial report dated November 10, 2006 recommended an award of custody of J.L.G and J.G. to Mother with an award of unsupervised visitation to Father (Pl.Ex.38). At a court appearance before Justice Aliotta on December 12, 2006, wherein he was advised of this recommendation, Husband consented to an Order of Sole Custody to Wife and Wife consented to an Order of unsupervised visits for Husband. (See Order dated 12/16/06). Despite this Consent Order, Wife credibly testified at trial that Husband called ACS a number of times alleging that she committed acts of neglect against the children. The Court notes that all of these child protective services investigations were deemed unfounded after investigation. Wife further testified, and Husband admitted that he also employed, at various times, a private investigator to follow Wife. Wife credibly testified that she believed the investigator was hired in an effort to compile evidence to use against her in these proceedings.
On June 25, 2007, the criminal case against Husband was tried and dismissed by the Hon. Karen Rothenberg. The companion Family Court docket, a Family Offense Petition (Docket O–3762/08) brought by Wife against Husband was tried before this Part in March of 2011. By Short Form Order dated March 9, 2011 this Court dismissed Wife's Petition as she failed to meet her burden of proving that Husband committed a specified family offense. On that date Wife's Temporary Order of Protection was vacated.
After Wife's Family Offense Petition was dismissed, Husband commenced a Civil Court action alleging false arrest and other charges against Wife and the City of New York. During the course of the present divorce trial, Husband testified that the Civil Court action was resolved in his favor after he obtained a default judgment against Wife in the amount of $300,000. This default judgment was based upon Wife's failure to appear in court. Wife attempted to explain her non-appearance in Civil Court by claiming that she arrived late, encountered Husband in the courthouse and that he falsely told her that the matter was adjourned. Husband has recorded the default judgment against the marital home. Wife claims that the judgment was levied against the home to defeat any possible award of equitable distribution she may receive with regard to this property. Despite her claims of fraud, Wife has never moved to vacate the default judgment against her.
Prior to the Consent Order of Custody dated December 12, 2006, Rita Kaufman Esq. of the Children's Law Center was appointed to represent the subject children J.G. and J.L.G. (See Order dated February 21, 2006, Adams, J). Ms. Kathleen Garrigan was appointed to represent the child Jo.G. (See Order dated March 14, 2006, Adams, J). During the course of the litigation, among other motions, Husband moved on two separate occasions before two different Judges to disqualify Ms. Kaufman and the Children's Law Center on the grounds of alleged bias against Husband, and an alleged inability to properly represent the interests of the subject children. These motions were denied as was Husband's motion to renew and reargue the same.
After custody of J.G. and J.L.G was resolved, for the second time, in March of 2011, Ms. Kaufman and Ms. Garrigan were relieved as counsel. Ms. Garrigan was granted a judgment and lien on the marital premises to satisfy outstanding Court Ordered legal fees that Husband failed to pay. During the course of these proceedings Ms. Valerie Van Leer–Greenberg Ms. Alison Aplin, and the law firm of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Freidman, LLP were also granted judgments and liens on Husband and the marital property at issue in this divorce.
By Pendente Lite Motion filed June 16, 2006 (Seq. No. 003) Wife sought, among other relief, an award of temporary spousal maintenance, child support and counsel fees. By Order dated October 4, 2006 (the “Pendente Lite Order”), Husband was ordered to pay $4,000 per month in...
To continue reading
Request your trial