FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ONONDAGA ————————————-
IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR SUPPORT AFFIDAVIT
Docket No.F-540-98
John Murtari, Petitioner
— against —
Adrianne Phillipson, Respondent
1. My attorney received the order of dismissal on about February 16th, 2001. I am writing to object to the issuance of the order and asking the matter be allowed to proceed.
2. The recent order mentions “no cause of action” and disputes the facts presented in my original petition. It also includes reference to case law.
3. I ask the Court to closely review this based on what I feel are three important points: * I did not have the benefit of Counsel in preparing my petition. I did retain Mr. Greenough at a later date. * The petition raises issues of fact and law which can only be fairly determined by a hearing. There are factual errors in the Order of Dismissal regarding dates. * Factual confusion during appearance.
No assistance of Counsel in petition preparation.
4. I recently completed a six month jail sentence and was released on December 28th, 2000. It is important to me to get this matter resolved, I take my family obligations very seriously. When released I immediately filed a Petition for Modification (I was under a license suspension), but without the assistance of counsel at that time.
5. A few weeks later I retained Mr. Greenough to represent me at the initial appearance. I hoped the Court would grant me some reasonable discretion regarding any defects in the Petition with the hope a hearing would resolve the true facts in this matter.
6. Judge, I have obligations to an elderly mother and to my young son which I have always taken very seriously. When I was sentenced to jail in June of 2000, it was just a violation hearing and there was no opportunity to discuss the “soundness” of the support order or changes in circumstance. That support order is now over two years old and I am simply asking for my “day in court” to fairly resolve these issues.
Petition attempts to raise issues of fact and law.
7. As I clearly state in the Petition, the original support order was issued after a hearing in November of 1998. At that time the relocation of Domenic to California was underway in Judge Bersani’s Court.
8. When the relocation trial was held, the support matter had been heard in front of Examiner Davies, but no order had yet been issued.
9. The Order of Dismissal states that Judge Bersani issued his relocation order on November 20, 1998. This is clearly incorrect. I have the signed copy of the order. Judge Bersani issued his order on December 9th,of 1998, no support order had yet been issued.
10. The Order of Dismissal states that Judge Bersani addressed the issue of travel expenses. It does not appear to be so. His order allows me to visit Domenic one weekend per month, Christmas, Spring Break, and grants six weeks of vacation in the summer. He only mentions sharing travel expenses for the summer vacation period and it was not addressed in a manner referring to adjusting support. Again, he knew a support decision was pending, but not yet issued.
11. I have a copy of the Examiners initial order. It was released on December 28, 1998.
12. The Order of Dismissal relates case law regarding incarceration being grounds for modification. I have seen a recent Federal Decision overturning a State support finding which appeared to say that “incarceration is never voluntary.” Again, the research of such an item and presentation of arguments could be made at a hearing.
13. The Order of Dismissal does not address the additional issue raised in my petition. That I have a Civil Right to petition my government and seek reform.
14. Given the entire circumstances I believe a hearing will show that I am “fully employed.”
Factual confusion during appearance.
15. Opposing counsel appeared to misstate several of the facts in the manner. She stated that the Judge had addressed support issues when ordering the relocation (that is certainly not clear). She also stated I was not paying support prior to the relocation (this is not correct). She also appeared to obfuscate the actual timeline of events – and it appears the Hearing Examiner, based on the date errors in the Order of Dismissal, accepted all or part of that information.
16. Again, a fair hearing will allow both sides to clearly present the facts. There is so much at stake here, I pray the Court will allow a hearing to be held. I have been active in volunteer work in the community, active in my Church, and I am eager to insure Domenic gets the support he deserves.
Sworn to before me on _____________ ____________________ John Murtari Petitioner ________________________ Notary Public