Katz v. Katz
| Decision Date | 11 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 54288/2012.,54288/2012. |
| Citation | 38 Misc.3d 1210,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 50041,966 N.Y.S.2d 346 |
| Parties | Miriam KATZ, Plaintiff, v. Abraham KATZ, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Harvey S. Jacobs, Esq., Brooklyn, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Nicholas J. Fortuna, Esq., Allyn & Fortuna LLP, New York City, Attorney for Defendant.
Brad Nacht, Esq., Brooklyn, Attorney for the Child.
The parties posit that this application involves a long standing dispute in the Satmar Jewish Community related to beliefs of varying segments of the community regarding the State of Israel.
This is a dispute between two (2) parents, who have until now been able to recognize and resolve any differences relating to the child, who is seven (7) years old. The mother wishes to travel with the child to Israel to attend, on January 23, 2013, the wedding of Moshe Labin, the child's maternal uncle, to Miriam Yitty Teitelbaum. The mother described this wedding as a significant event within the Satmar community because Miriam Yitty Teitelbaum is “the daughter of a very famous and influential rabbi and this wedding will be a most momentous event in Israel.”
At the initial application on December 5, 2012, oral argument ensued, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.17, wherein the Court denied the ex parte request for permission to obtain a passport for the child, established a briefing schedule for the application, and appointed an attorney for the child who was present in court for the ex parte application.
The mother in her application seeks an order (1) awarding the mother temporary custody of the parties child born in May 2005; or in the alternative; (2) directing the father to obtain a passport for the child for the limited purpose of traveling to Israel during the month of January 2013; (3) directing the passport for the child be held in escrow by the wife's counsel prior to and on the return of the child from Israel; and (4) and such further and different relief as is just. The father opposes the application. The Court, on the record, stated it was willing to conduct an evidentiary hearing; both parties and the attorney for the child waived an evidentiary hearing on the issues presented and rested on their papers and oral argument related to the papers presented.
The father avers that the child traveling to Israel is in contravention of the express language of the parties' purported agreement, dated May 17, 2010, which the father contends requires joint decision making on all issues affecting the child's health and welfare, and which requires their agreement as to the child's moral and religious upbringing. He posits that the mother has not met her burden of demonstrating that it is in the child's best interest to travel to Israel to attend her brother's wedding as to warrant the “drastic remedy of awarding her temporary custody of the child in contravention of the parties' separation agreement”. The father affirms that any child's travel to Israel is contrary to the tenets of Satmar Hasidism, which the father claims the child has been raised to follow and the mother has agreed to raise the child to follow in accordance with their agreement dated May 17, 2010. The father contends that the “tenets of Satmar Hasidism forbid travel to Israel because it is believed that the State of Israel and the Zionist idea upon which the State is built on, is in conflict with the central tenets of the Ultra–Orthodox Satmar teachings”.
The father's counsel annexed the affirmation of Rabbi Chaskel Teitelbaum dated December 31, 2013, to his responsive papers. In Rabbi Chaskel Teitelbaum's affirmation dated December 31, 2013, he states:
1. I am a Rabbi of the Synagogue for the Synagogue for the Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar Inc., located at 165 Clymer Street, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11211. Our Synagogue observes the religious beliefs of the Ultra–Orthodox Satmar Community and follows the teachings of our leader, the father of pure Judaism in America Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the founder of the Ultra–Orthodox Satmar Community in the U.S. (the “Grand Rabbi”).
2. I am familiar with [the child] because he attends my Synagogue on Clymer Street in Brooklyn, has been raised as Ultra–Orthodox Satmar (“Satmar Hasidism”) and taught to follow the teachings of the Grand Rabbi.
3. At the core of Grand Rabbi's teachings is his belief that the State of Israel (the “State”) and the Zionist idea upon which the State is built on, constitutes an absolute denial of all the central tenets of our faith in G-d and the Holy Torah. Observers of Satmar Hasidism belive as the Holy Torah says that Jews are nation, that G-d, the G-d of Israel is the King and we are His servants, His chosen nation, He took us out of Egypt, He gave us the land of Israel and then He exiled us amongst the nations because of our sins, and only He shall redeem us and gather us back to Israel through the Messianic King.
4. In Stark contrast, Zionism denies those teachings in the Torah and declares that Jewish people are like all other nations. Jews too have power to arm themselves to wage war, demand rights, and to free themselves from the exile through building the State of Israel.
5. As a result, our great Grand Rabbi opposed any travel to the State of Israel because of the spiritual influence and impression that a visit to the State would create by seeing the glory and splendor of institutions that do not follow the views of our great Grand Rabbi.
Rabbi Chasekel Teitelbaum states that it is clear that “an impressionable child being raised as Ultra–Orthodox Satmar should not be traveling to the State of Israel” because the “child is at risk of having his religious beliefs undermined by the splendor of the State, the splendor of those communities that do not follow the Grand Rabbi's approach.” Rabbi Chssekel Teitelbaum states that travel to Israel would confuse the child and “would be against [the child's] best interests because he is too young to understand the differences that he will be exposed to in Israel, which oppose the foundations of his faith and the education that the Child has received until now”.1
The parties' agreement is dated May 17, 2010. It provides, inter alia, that
(3) CUSTODY.The Child will stay in the joint legal custody of the 2 parties; decisions on matters of The Child 's education, which school or Yeshiva he should attend, belongs to Party A, he will however consult and be considerate with Party B.[ 2] As to any change in the situation of The Child, whether on matters of health or all other matters and issues related to him, the parties must inform and consult with each other through the intermediary, and all decisions regarding The Child will be with the consent of both. As of now, The Child will stay with Party B who will look out for all of The Child 's needs in the most positive way (primary physical custody)....
(7) JOYOUS OCCASIONS.The Child will participate in every joyous occasion of the relatives who are disqualified as witnesses, such as engagement, wedding, Sheva Bruchos, Sabbath Sheva Brochos, Bar Mitzvah, Vach Nacht, Upsherin, and the likes. On a late-night-ending wedding, he will sleep over with Party A and will go to school from there; this, obviously, is on such occasions where other children customarily go to within this family ...
(8) EDUCATION. The 2 parties are obligating themselves to raise The Child to appropriately respect the 2 parents, the grandfathers and grandmothers of both parties and their families. They will also educate and raise The Child on all matters in the traditional Jewish style and within the Hasidic framework in the spirit and level of the 2 families of the parties with no compromises whatsoever, and the parties will adhere to the regulations of the school. All matters of The Childs ' customs, clothing, and environment, in which he finds himself, etc., will be in accordance with the regime and clothing of the other children of the 2 families of the parties. No party will take The Child to any place which is incompatible with the aforementioned style and manner, not even temporarily or for the Sabbath; and as the intermediary sees fit.
The mother avers that the parties physically separated in March 2008 and both parties concede they have lived separate and apart in accordance with the terms of this agreement since it was signed on May 17, 2010.3
The mother posits that the wedding is a significant event in their community and that it is important that she and the child travel to Israel. The mother notes that the father himself has traveled to Israel. The father acknowledges that he has traveled to Israel on three (3) occasions, and as recently as within the last 12 months, but that each time he traveled to Israel it was in his adult life, not as a child. The mother claims that the child's educational needs will be met during the trip. She avers that the question before this Court is not a religious one, nor a political question. Rather, the question before this Court is simply, can a child travel to his uncle's destination wedding?
At oral argument, a factual dispute ensued, wherein the father claimed there is a rabbinic prohibition on children attending this wedding in Israel and the mother claimed there will be children from the Satmar community traveling to Israel to attend the wedding. The mother's counsel noted in the mother's reply papers that “[t]he limitations on the extent of the family traveling to celebrate this occasion is premised on the very young age of the children and costs associated with the trip.”
In the case at bar there is no order or judgment of custody. The parties simply entered into an agreement in 2010 and have been living by the dictates of that agreement without court intervention. It is undisputed that their agreement is not acknowledged in the form of a deed ( see Matisof v. Dobi (90 N.Y.2d 127, 681 N.E.2d 376 [1997];see alsoDomestic Relations Law § 236[B] [3] ). The Appellate Division,...
To continue reading
Request your trial