New York NY Lawyer Susan Chana Lask Free Family Law Legal Forms

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE:THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING IS TO PUNISH YOU FOR A CONTEMPT OF COURT.

SUCH PUNISHMENT MAY CONSIST OF FINE OR IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH, ACCORDING TO LAW.

WARNING:

YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT MAY RESULT IN YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF QUEENS

_________________________________________ Docket No. V-10000/99A

JUAN SANCHEZ,

Petitioner, NOTICE OF MOTION TO AMENDED

-against- PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION & HOLD RESPONDENT IN

CRYSTAL LEE SANCHEZ, CONTEMPT

Respondent.

_________________________________________

SIRS:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affirmation of Susan Chana Lask, Esq., dated July 24, 2003 and affidavit of Juan Sanchez, sworn to July 24, 2003, and upon all the papers and proceedings heretofore had herein, a motion will be made before Referee Francine Seiden (room 480), Queens County Family Court, 151-20 Jamaica Avenue, Jamaica, NY on September 24, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, to punish Respondent for contempt of a visitation order relative to these proceedings and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and proper.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that the purpose of the hearing is to punish Respondent for a contempt of court. Such punishment may consist of fine or imprisonment, or both, according to law.

Pursuant to CPLR 2214(b), answering affidavits, if any, are required to be served upon the undersigned at least seven days before the return date of this motion.

Dated: July 24, 2003 Yours, etc

LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN CHANA LASK

___________________________

BY: Susan Chana Lask, Esq.

Attorney for Petitioner

853 Broadway, Suite 1516

New York, NY 10003

(212) 358-5762

To: Crystal Lee 123-14 Broadway, NY, NY 10003

Hillary Mintz, Esq., Simpson-Thatcher, 425 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017

By regular mail and fax 212.000-0000

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF QUEENS

_________________________________________ Docket No. V-10000/99A

JUAN SANCHEZ,

Petitioner, AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF

-against- AMENDED PETITION TO MODIFY ORDER OF

VISITATION & HOLD RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT

CRYSTAL LEE SANCHEZ,

Respondent.

_________________________________________

I, Susan Chana Lask, Esq., an attorney in good-standing and duly admitted to practice in the State of New York as attorney for Petitioner, JUAN SANCHEZ, in this proceeding and fully familiar with this matter, affirm the truth of the following statements under the penalties of perjury:

1. My Affirmation is based upon my review of the record, documents provided to me by Petitioner and upon Petitioner's Affidavit and its exhibits attached hereto. Petitioner seeks to (a) hold Respondent in contempt of this Court's August 27, 2002 Final Visitation Order (the "Order") and (b) modify the terms of the Order with respect to Respondents frequency of visitation and transportation arrangements of the child, Bill.

2. This has been a bitterly contested case since 1999 in this Court. Petitioner has good intentions for Bill's well-being but he had the unfortunate circumstance of being fooled by his prior "counsel", Mr. Nash, a New Jersey admitted attorney, who gave Petitioner unprofessional and plain bad advice in this case. Unbeknownst to Petitioner, I discovered that Mr. Nash represented Petitioner when his license to practice was terminated. My review of the record shows a series of negligent advice and counseling by Mr. Nash, to the point that Petitioner was held in contempt as a result of his direction.

3. Mr. Nash and his alleged New York counsel, Ozro T. Wells, not only fooled Petitioner but fooled this Court when they claimed in their December 22, 2002 Pro Hac Vice Motion to this court to be associated and Wells affirmed that he would support Mr. Nash's pro hac vice admission; however, both attorneys violated Appellate Rules §520(c) as Wells did not act accordingly as attorney of record and allowed Nash to proceed in this jurisdiction without the benefit of his local counsel.

4. Despite the problems in this case, it is my intention to finally resolve this matter put an end to the ongoing squabbling and stop wasting the court's time. The parties can and should resolve their conflicts with the proper counseling and a modified visitation order detailing their course of conduct. At all costs we do not want to exclude Respondent from Bill's life, but we can enforce the Order for Bill's well-being and demand that Respondent at least be consistent and responsible with maintaining her visitation schedule with Bill.

5. First, it is mandatory that Respondent adhere to a consistent visitation schedule and to stop failing to appear or calling at the last minute to cancel. Respondent has set the standard in the last six months of averaging once a month visits so she should therefore be put on that schedule as that is the only schedule she can maintain. Moreso, her failures to appear for visitation are an extreme inconvenience upon Petitioner, Bill and their family when they depend on Respondent's scheduled visits and then must rearrange their weekend schedules when she does not appear. Moreso, it is emotionally damaging to Bill when his mother fails to appear for visitation.

6. Second, it is mandatory to take the onus off of Petitioner of transporting Bill all the way to Queens from Newark, New Jersey and back again. There is no reason why Respondent can not obtain a driver's license, borrow or rent a car or take public transportation for her visitation. It is certainly within her means as Respondent has in the past made the trip to Newark to see Bill Just because Petitioner has a car does not mean he has to be responsible for Respondent's visitation. Also, Respondent must provide a bed for Bill if he is to stay with her overnight rather than make him sleep on the floor. She also must insure Bill is on the proper diet and apply his skin medications and products for his Atopic Dermatitis condition.

7. Third, at all costs visitation drop-off and pick-ups must not be at Respondent's local police precinct. There is no reason why this child must be delivered to a precinct and remember meeting his mother in that environment. It is absolutely absurd on both parents parts to be involved in this and a visitation order with clear prohibitions against certain conduct could resolve this "need" to have visitation commence and terminate at the precinct. Respondent should be able to meet Bill at a restaurant or park near his home or even pick him up in front of his home without confrontation between the parties.

8. Lastly, Respondent has willfully and contumaciously violated the mandates of the Order, to wit, she continues to smoke around Bill, she refused phone visitation to Petitioner, she fails to follow his diet for his skin condition, she refuses to discuss Bill's health with Petitioner and she fails to provide a phone number where she can be reached. It is well settled that where there is no excuse for noncompliance with an order of Family Court, a party may be held in contempt. Matter of Milton v. Dennis, 99 A.D.2d 565, 566, 471 N.Y.S.2d 392. A finding of contempt will be made when the order violated is clear and explicit and the act complained of is clearly proscribed. Kuenen v. Kuenen, 122 A.D.2d 616, 504 N.Y.S.2d 937. Contempt by way of fine, imprisonment or both is mandated here as it appears to be the only means to have Respondent follow enforce the Order.

9. This court has the discretion to grant counsel fees and expenses. Dowd v. White, 547 N.Y.S.2d 118, 155 A.D.2d 459(2nd Dept.,1989). Petitioner requests attorney fees based on Respondent's conduct causing the filing of this Petition. Your affirmant requests the Court to allow her to provide an Affirmation containing her final accounting of billable hours to assist the court in making its counsel fee award.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that the Court deny the present motion of Defendant in its entirety, grant Plaintiff's request to modify Defendant's parental rights, grant costs and attorney fees to Plaintiff and for such other and further relief as this Court deem just and proper.

Dated: July 24, 2003

New York, New York Yours, etc

LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN CHANA LASK

___________________________

BY: Susan Chana Lask, Esq.

Attorney for Petitioner

853 Broadway, Suite 1516

New York, NY 10003

(212) 358-5762

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF QUEENS

_________________________________________ Docket No. V-14577/99A

JUAN SANCHEZ,

Petitioner, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF

-against- AMENDED PETITION TO MODIFY ORDER OF

VISITATION & HOLD

CRYSTAL LEE SANCHEZ, RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT

Respondent.

_________________________________________

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

JUAN SANCHEZ, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the defendant in the above entitled proceeding and submit this affidavit in support of my Petition for a modification of this Court's Final Visitation Order, dated August 27, 2002, (the "Order") based on events that took place since that Order and the last April 8, 2003 hearing. I request (a) modifying the terms of Respondent's visitation with our son, Bill, by (i) reducing the frequency of weekend visits to once a month, (ii) terminating overnight visits, and (iii) directing Respondent to pick-up and return Bill at his home and not at her local police precincts as presently provided for in the Order; (b) holding Respondent in contempt of the Order because of her constant disregard of the Order's terms, all to my detriment and (c) granting me counsel fees in the sum of Six Thousand ($6,000.00) Dollars.

I. RESPONDENT IS IN CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT'S ORDER BY CONSISTENTLY DISREGARDING IT AND UNILATERALLY CHANGING ITS TERMS ON HER OWN CONDITIONS

2. I have had primary and physical custody of my son, Bill, age 5, throughout these proceedings and since 1999 when myself and Respondent have separated and subsequently divorced. Respondent never intended to raise or keep Bill since our separation and to this date it is clear she has no time for him. She has a 9-5 job as a legal secretary, with overtime, attends paralegal school 4 nights a week and I understand that she works as a night club promoter on the weekends. Respondent is too busy and consequently not concerned with Bill as she has consistently failed to make her Court Ordered weekend visitations and phone visitations with him since this Court's August 27, 2002 Order.

3. Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Order, Respondent should visit Bill every first, third and fourth weekend; however, she has consistently canceled her visits or simply does not show-up. The following schedule of her cancellations and no-shows supports the fact that she has no time to see Bill pursuant to the Order's schedule, as well as she has been violating the Order every month for the past six months:

2002

December

7-8

2003

January

18^-19

25^- 26

February

22-23

March

22- 23

April

12 -13

19-20

26-27

May

3- 4

June 1

June

6- 8

19 (Bill's School graduation date)

21-22

28-29

July

20 (Respondent called 7/19 to cancel Bill's planned Birthday visit with her,

saying she had " too many important things to do and would not be able to make it to pick up Bill at the precinct")

4. Additionally, Respondent has failed to make her scheduled phone visits pursuant to the Order. She has not called Bill for 8 weeks since her last May 22 call. Respondent also unilaterally changes the terms of the Order when it comes to my phone visits with Bill when he is at her home. For example, the Order grants me reciprocal phone visitation rights, meaning I can call Monday through Thursday at 6:30 PM and Fridays between 8-8:30 PM, however, Bill was not made available when I called Monday, July 7, Tuesday July 8 and Wednesday July 9 at 6:30 PM. I left messages but Respondent has refused to return my calls. Recently, in violation of paragraph 12 of the Order, Respondent has shut down her phone numbers and changed jobs and refuses to give me that number. Whatever phone is in her apartment, she never rarely answers and when I leave a message she claims she never gets my messages.

5. Respondent's interference with my phone visitation is stressful to me as well as to my son as he feels rejected he knows I never miss a phone visitation call to him. Respondent's interference is purposely abusive as she knows she is creating suspicion and fear within Bill as to why his father has not called, resulting in alienating his affections towards me when he does not understand I actually have been trying to call him. Respondent further violates the Order by interfering with the few calls she does let me make to Bill. She tickles him and interrupts our conversation in violation of paragraph 6(h) wherein we are to have privacy during our phone visits.

6. The Order grants Respondent her visitation schedule for the very reason that the best interests of a young child, Bill, demands consistency and uniformity in seeing his non-custodial parent. Respondent does not support Bill's best interests as she has no intention nor time to visit Bill on a regular and scheduled basis, thus causing him to feel rejected and depressed when she fails to see him. Respondent's conduct is in contempt of this Court's Order to which she has caused distress to Bill and myself by upsetting both his and my schedule.

7. Respondent further violates the Order as her and her friends continue smoking around Bill. When Bill returns from Respondent's home he reaks of smoke. The Order at paragraph 15 prohibits smoking around him and it must be enforced. Paragraphs 6(d), 7 and 14 are also being violated by Respondent, to wit: she is always late for visitation pick-ups and drop-offs, she never gave me reasonable notice regarding what two weeks visitation she would have in the summer and insisted on me agreeing to her last minute schedule to which I did then she canceled the second week anyhow and Respondent undermines Bill's relationship with my wife by making him that he should not be as close to her as he is.

8. Lastly, Respondent leaves Bill alone with friends when he visits her or most times with another boy named Hector who hits Bill. She also fails to adhere to Bill's special diet due to his skin condition, Atopic Dermatitis. Respondent sees nothing wrong with returning Bill to me with bruises and maladies as a result of Hector hitting him and her disregarding his special diet. I have photos and doctor's notes verifying Bill's condition each time he returns from visiting with Respondent. Notably, Respondent makes Bill sleep on the floor and has no bed for him when he visits, yet Hector, the boy who beats up on Bill, has a bed in the house. These are not conditions he should be subjected to when visiting his mother. This Court must accordingly reconsider overnight visits as they are not in Bill's best interest.

9. I would, also, respectfully ask that a provision be included directing Respondent to advise me of the place or places where she intends to take Bill and a description of the accommodations when he does visit her, even if for the day, as she has in the past told me it's none of my business. It is my business to know where my son will be and with whom when apparently he is being left alone and with other people who smoke cigarettes and marijuana around him.

II. MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER IS REQUIRED

A. THE VISITATION SCHEDULE MUST BE MODIFIED AS RESPONDENT

HAS SET THE STANDARD FOR THE PAST 6 MONTHS OF SEEING

BILL ONLY ONCE A MONTH

10. Respondent does not have the time to see Bill pursuant to the Order's every other weekend. For the past six months she has set the standard for her visitation to once a month instead of the Order's three times a month. She cancels at the last minute or simply does not appear without prior notice, thus causing me to drive Bill all the way to Queens for no reason. Her last minute cancellations and no-shows have wasted mine and Bill's time scheduling for the weekend or preparing our day for Respondent to pick Bill up. Her disregard of her visitation schedule is an extreme inconvenience for my family and Bill.

11. It would be in everyone's interest, and in the best interests of Bill, that the Order be modified to visitation once a month as that is the schedule Respondent has been able to make. Accordingly, Bill has a better chance of seeing Respondent on the schedule she has set in the past 6 months rather than being disappointed and emotionally rejected by her cancellations and no-shows the rest of the month.

B. PICKING-UP AT AND RETURNING BILL TO POLICE

PRECINCTS AND PETITIONER PROVIDING ALL

TRANSPORTATION MUST BE TERMINATED.

12. The Order has Bill's pick-ups and returns to Respondent's local police precincts. There is no reason for Bill's visitation with his mother to start and finish at her local police precinct. It does Bill no good emotionally as a young boy to be in an environment where arrests and other official police business is carried on. A park or restaurant would be a better pick-up and drop-off location for a child's visitation to start and end rather than a police precinct.

13. Having Bill at Respondent's local police precinct is solely for (a) her convenience and (b) out of spite towards me. I should not have to transport Bill from his home in Newark New Jersey some 40 miles away to a Queens Precinct around the corner from Respondent. Respondent has stated in the past that because I have a car then I should drive Bill to her; however, the reality is that Respondent can easily rent a car for the weekends she wants to visit Bill. A rental car is not expensive and Respondent certainly can afford to spend up to $60.00 for the weekend if she wants to see her son. The onus should no longer be on me to do all of the driving, especially when Respondent does not make her visitation and has numerous times made me drive for nothing.

III. COUNSEL FEES SHOULD BE PAID TO PETITIONER AS THIS PETITION WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY BUT FOR RESPONDENT'S VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDER

14. The disagreements between myself and Respondent have a history in this and other courts that needs to end here. My intentions have always been for the best interests of Bill and as many times as I need to protect him from being returned to me bruised and sick from Respondents house, feeling rejected from Respondent's failing to visit him and keeping him away from cigarette and marijuana smoke then I will do what I have to do in this court.

15. The only matter to my detriment in this case has been my following the advice of a William Nash, Esq. NaturalIy I relied upon him as my attorney but unfortunately his advice caused me to be held in contempt (see Exhibit "B", Nash's e-mail advising me to withhold contact of Bill from Respondent during November, 2002, causing me to be held in contempt). On April 8, 2002, the day I was in this court for the contempt hearing that Mr. Nash conducted was the same day he was suspended from practicing law and suspended to this day. (See Exhibit "C", State Bar of New Jersey suspension decision of Nash).

16. It is clear to me now that Mr. Nash knew of his suspension yet proceeded to negligently conduct the contempt hearing, resulting in my being held in contempt. I shall proceed against him accordingly; nevertheless, his negligence resulting in my being punished should not prejudice me from enforcing my rights under the Order and it is urgent this Court be aware of that circumstance to remove any intolerance against me as a result of that incident. Additionally, Respondent must be ordered to cease threatening me with going to jail again on contempt and stating " you know Seiden is on my side" as she has done the last few months whenever I want to enforce my rights under the Order. It was frightening enough to have spent 5 weekends in jail based upon the advice of an attorney who should not have been practicing in the first place, but to have to revisit the memory from the extortionist threats of Respondent is harassing and traumatizing.

17. It is respectfully requested that the Court grant me counsel fees in connection with this Petition. This petition was necessitated by Respondent's misconduct and her disobeying the Order. The Court is asked to award me counsel fees and costs. It is respectfully submitted that this Court has the power to grant this application in light of all of the circumstances herein.

WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that this Court grant my application to hold respondent in contempt of Court for violating the Order, to modify the terms of the Order and to award counsel fees to me.

Dated: July 24, 2003 ___________________

New York, NY JUAN SANCHEZ

Sworn to and Subscribed

before me this 24th day of July, 2003

Susan Chana Lask,Notary Public

_____________________ State of New York,No 02-000000 Qualified in NY County, Commission expires

NOTARY PUBLIC

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Docket No. V-10000/99A Year 2003

SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF QUEENS

__________________________________

JUAN SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

-against-

CRYSTAL LEE SANCHEZ,

Respondent.

__________________________________

AFFIRMATION OF PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY IN

SUPPORT OF AMENDED PETITION

____________________________________

Attorneys for Petitioner

LAW OFFICES OF

SUSAN CHANA LASK

853 Broadway, Suite 1516

New York, New York 10003

( 212) 358-5762

___________________________________________________

Docket No. V-10000/99A Year 2003

SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF QUEENS

__________________________________

JUAN SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

-against-

CRYSTAL LEE SANCHEZ,

Respondent.

__________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER IN SUPPORT OF

AMENDED PETITION

____________________________________

Attorneys for Petitioner

LAW OFFICES OF

SUSAN CHANA LASK

853 Broadway, Suite 1516

New York, New York 10003

( 212) 358-5762

___________________________________________________