OBJECTION TO JULY 6 JUDICIAL TORTURE

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

INDEX NO. F-28901-08/10A/B/C

ELENA SVENSON, Petitioner,

OBJECTION -against- Judge Paula Hepner

Oral argument is requested MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,

Respondent.

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Pro Se, respondent in the actions herein, objects to hearing officer

John Fasone' VOID orders from July 6, 2011 unlawful and unconstitutional hearing on

the following grounds:

1. This proceedings started more than a year ago and were adjourned without any reason or

consent by respondent. Justice delayed is justice denied!

2. Respondent made a special visitation under duress, coercion and did not consent to

jurisdiction of Mr. Fasone, per se.

3. According to both Constitutions of United States and New York State: government derives

its power and authority from consent of the governed.

4. Respondent did not consent to be adjudicated and persecuted by Mr. Fasone, even though

Mr. Fasone alleged on the record that we had a contract.

5. Mr. Krichevsky objected to Mr. Fasone's jurisdiction on numerous occasions on the record,

but Mr. Fasone denied respondent's challenge.

6. Mr. Fasone refused to even read it and forcefully continued his unlawful proceedings.

7. Mr. Krichevsky on numerous occasions tried to recuse Mr. Fasone and challenged his

jurisdiction.

law and procedure, making inconsistent arguments, inquiries and comments.

18. After respondent realized that these whole proceedings are rigged against him, his

consciousness was shocked so badly that he suffered a stroke.

19. Not fully recovered from the stroke, respondent became a belligerent claimant in his attempt

to defend his life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness by demanding Mr. Fasone's

compliance with due process and Constitutions.

20. Again, all his requests were denied and to add more insult to respondent's injury, Mr. Fasone

requested that the respondent be polite to him during his judicial torture hearings.

OBJECTION TO RETALIATION AND PUNISHMENT THROUGH VOID

ORDERS: MORE INSULT AND INJURY

21. During March 16, 2011 jurisdictional challenge Mr. Fasone told respondent to bring this

issue to the judge and respondent replied that he will. However, Mr. Fasone immediately

broke his agreement and ordered another hearing without giving respondent an

opportunity to get this issue settled by the judge.

22. Mr. Krichevsky objected and on April 13, 2011 filed an order to show cause challenging Mr.

Fasone's jurisdiction, which is now pending before Judge Paula Hepner.

23. During June 1, 2011 coercive hearing, Mr. Fasone found (on page 27, starting with line 3 of

the transcript and below) that respondent's only income is from unemployment and

modified his child support order down to $298 per month. Exhibit A

24. However, Mr. Fasone on July 6, 2011 during another coercive hearing decided to punish

respondent for not cooperating with him to be jailed and not consenting to his

jurisdiction by Voiding his modified support order of $298 per month and replacing it

with prior, still VOID ab initio, order on February 3, 2010.

25. To add more insult to the injury he dismissed respondent's petition for modification of

support without prejudice. Is he expecting that Mr. Krichevsky file yet another petition

for modification and consent to his jurisdiction begging him to modify his child support?

26. What is going on? Did Mr. Fasone tell respondent that he has no power and authority to

change his own orders? Did Mr. Fasone tell Mr. Krichevsky on the record: I do not

review my own work?

27. Did Mr. Fasone deny a hearing to respondent requesting review of his February 3, 2010

support order based on the fact that it was obtained by petitioner's and her attorney's

LEVORITZ fraud, perjury and misconduct?

28. Did Mr. Fasone refused to follow CPLR R50 15(a) (3),(4), R5012, 5019 (a) and CPLR

2002?

29. Did public officer and trustee Mr. Fasone usurped power and authority from respondent by

acting like a king and deciding when or whether he will follow any law or procedure?

30. Respondent also objects to Mr. Fasone's representation of petitioner as counsel by giving her

legal advice from the bench. On July 6, 2011 in apologizing tone he gave her legal

advice by telling her that he has no choice but to dismiss non-support petition for lack of

evidence, but that she can file it again anytime.

31. Is he suggesting to petitioner to file yet another frivolous criminal non-support petition to

keep Mr. Fasone busy earning a leaving by torturing father?

32. To say that Mr. Fasone is not corrupt and acting not against Mr. Krichevsky would be

INSULT TO HUMAN INTELLIGENCE and respondent requests an opportunity

4

to bring this evidence to court and make a record of proof.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this objection be taking seriously and justly,

and all orders be vacated and set aside; petition for nonsupport be dismissed with prejudice

and petitioner sanctioned for frivolous litigation and malicious persecution by paying

respondents attorney fees and restitution.

Under penalty of perjury with the first hand knowledge August 11, 2011

Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se Attorney for Respondent All rights reserved without prejudice 4221 Atlantic Ave Brooklyn, New York 11224 (718) 687-2300

ELENA SVENSON 2620 OCEAN PARKWAY APT 3K BROOKLYN, NY 11235

F.C.A. § 439, 460, Art.5-B

4-14 09/1999

At a term of the Family Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at 330 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, on July 6, 2011

PRESENT: John M. Fasone, Support Magistrate

In the Matter of a Support Proceeding File #: 142040 Docket #: F-28901-08/1013

Elena Svenson, DOB: 3/24/1958, ORDER 2620 Ocean Parkway, Apt. 3K

ENTRY MONEY

Brooklyn, NY 11235, JUDGMENT Petitioner,

- against -

Michael Krichevsky, DOB: 11/21/1955, 4221 Atlantic Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11224,

Respondent.

NOTICE: YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN INCARCERATION FOR CRIMINAL NON-SUPPORT OR CONTEMPT. YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE, STATE-ISSUED PROFESSIONAL, TRADE, BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES AND RECREATIONAL AND SPORTING LICENSES AND PERMITS; AND IMPOSITION OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY LIENS.

An application having been made by Elena Svenson for an order directing the entry of judgment in the sum of $21,916.34, that being the amount of arrears having accrued because ofnon-payment by Michael Krichevsky of sums directed to be paid by an order dated February 3, 2010, of Kings County Family Court together with costs and disbursements and Michael Krichevsky's last known address is 4221 Atlantic Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11224.

The matter having duly come on to be heard before this court;

NOW, after examination and inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the proofs and testimony offered in relation thereto; and the defaulting party not having shown good cause for failure to make application for relief from thejudgment or order directing such payment prior to accrual of such arrears; it is therefore

ADJUDGED that Michael Krichevsky failed to obey the Order of this Court in that Michael Krichevsky failed to pay the sum of $53,515.76, which amount the Court finds to be the arrears due and owing under said Order; and it is

ORDERED that the judgment be entered in favor of Elena Svenson against Michael

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Page: 2 of 2 Docket No: F-28901-08/1 OB

4-14

Krichevsky in the amount of $21,916.34; and it is further

ORDERED that a certified copy of said judgment may be filed in the county clerk's office in accordance with Section 460 of the Family Court Act.

SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THIS ORDER MAY BE FILED WITH THIS COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED IN COURT OR BY PERSONAL SERVICE, OR IF THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY MAIL, WITHIN 35 DAYS OF THE MAILING OF THE ORDER.

Dated: July 6, 2011 ENTER

fHS IS TO CERTIFY THAT -THIS IS A ) rF1UE COPY OF (I.Jt \ MADE IN THE WATTERDESIGNATED IN SUCH/ COPY AND SHOWN BY THE RECORDS OF THE . I FMILY COURT OF THE F NEW Y0R

WITHIN THE Ci * re -W 44olvopT

COUNTY OF YfNGS.

-.

CFCouR/ oh M. Fasone, Support Magistrate

Ch9 ~I(applicable box: rder mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed]: IL( IL ( P c (a

0 Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom giveh]:_______________________________________

At a term of the Family Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at 330 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, on July 6,2011


In the Matter of a Support Proceeding

Michael Krichevsky, SSN: XXX-XX-7 181, Petitioner,

- against -

File #: 142040 Docket #: F-28901-08/10A

CSMS #: NV05003T1

Elena Svenson, SSN: XXX-XX-8546, Respondent.

NOTICE: YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN INCARCERATION FOR CRIMINAL NON-SUPPORT OR CONTEMPT. YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE, STATE-ISSUED PROFESSIONAL, TRADE, BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES AND RECREATIONAL AND SPORTING LICENSES AND PERMITS; AND IMPOSITION OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY LIENS.


IT IS ORDERED that the order of support is reinstated at $2045.00 per month effective nunc pro tunc 6/1/11. The next payment is due 7/15/11. This order is without prejudice to the arrears set.

Dated: July 6, 2011

ENTER

Fasone, Support Magistrate

' licabIe box: Order mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed]: (CL ..(

( .. S

0 Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom given]: (I 4

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Line

Client

Line

Client

Line

Client

Line

Client

Line

Client

Line

Client

Highlight

Client

Line

Client

Line

Client

Line

Client

Line

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

F.C.A. § §1 413, 416, 439(e) 4-SM-3 8/2010


In File #: 142040 the Matter of a Support Proceeding Docket #: F-28901-08/1OA&B

Michael Krichevsky, Petitioner, CSMS #: NV05003T1

- against FINDINGS OF FACT

Elena Svenson, - - - -Respondent.

John M. Fasone, being the Support Magistrate before whom the issues of support in the above-entitled proceeding were assigned for determination, makes the following findings of fact:

Michael Krichevsky filed a petition on April 22, 2010 seeking to modify an order dated February 3, 2010 which provided for the support of the following:

Name Date of Birth David Svenson August 14, 1994

Elena Svenson and Michael Krichevsky were never married to each other. The following child resides with Elena Svenson: David Svenson.

Elena Svenson has not submitted proof of income, expenses, or support of others. Michael Krichevsky has not submitted proof of income, expenses, or support of others.

Page: 2 Docket No: F-28901-08/1OA

4-SM-3

Michael Krichevsky non-willfully failed to obey the order of this court, namely: he has failed to make all payments of support due resulting in arrears.

Although it appears that respondent-father is presently in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits, his disruptive behavior in the courtroom - refusing to take the oath, state his identifying information or to give any straightforward answers to simple questions - has made it impossible to conduct any meaningful inquiry into the totality of his financial circumstances. Thus, the Court finds that he fails to prove financial- inability to comply with the underlying support obligation.

Nevertheless, inasmuch as Support Collection Unit is presently enforcing ongoing support, as well as against existing arrears, administratively by means of an income execution imposed against respondent-father's unemployment insurance benefit the Court finds his non-payment is non-willful.

Respondent-father's petition for modification is likewise dismissed without prejudice as his failure to comport himself in a reasonable/respectful marmer has made it impossible to conduct any meaningful inquiry into the facts of his present financial circumstances.

Dated: July 6, 2011

r4 ohn M. Fasone upport Magistrate

) GF16 10/2004

At a term of the Family Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at 330 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, on July 6,2011


In the Matter of a Support Proceeding File #: 142040 Docket #: F-28901-08/10A


- - against - ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Elena Svenson, Respondent.

A petition under Article 4 of the Family Court Act, having been filed in this Court on April 22, 2010 for the following: Modification of Arrears and Modification of Order of Support;

And the matter having duly come on to be heard before this Court and the following having appeared: Michael Krichevsky; Elena Svenson;

NOW, after examination and inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed due to petitioner's behavior in the court room makes any meaningful hearing impossible; it is therefore

ORDERED that the petition herein is dismissed without prejudice.

SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THIS ORDER MAY BE FILED WITH THIS COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED IN-COURT ORBYPERSONAL SERVICE, ORIFTHE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY MAIL, WITHIN 35 DAYS OF THE MAILING OF THE ORDER.

Dated: July 6, 2011 ENTER

Jhn'I. Fasone, Support Magistrate

Chpd 'ppHcab1e box: Order mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed]: V

0 Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom give ]: fr

MATTER OF POWERS v. Powers, 653 NE 2d 1154- NY: Court of Appeals 1995 - Google Scholar Page 1 of 4 Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more • My Citations I Scholar Preferences I Sign in

Go. gEe scholar In the Matter of Bernadette L. Powers, Appelle r Search:j Advanced Scholar Search

Read this case How cited MATTER OF POWERS v. Powers, 653 NE 2d 1154 - NY: Court of Appeals 1995

Highlighting In the Matter of Bernadette L. Powers, Appellant, Remove highlighting

86 N.Y.2d 63 (1995) 653 N.E.2d 1154 629 N.Y.S.2d 984

In the Matter of Bernadette L. Powers, Appellant, V.

Allen B. Powers, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued May 4, 1995. Decided June 14, 1995.

Joseph Nichols, Glens Falls, and Jennifer A. Jensen for appellant.

Gregory V. Canale, Glens Falls, and William V. Canale for respondent.

Judges SIMONS, TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE and CIPARICK concur.

65 *65Chief Judge KAYE.

"As every practitioner knows, the problems of enforcing a support order could fill a book " (Besharov, Introductory Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act art 4, at 5). The present chapter in the sad volume already filled by the parties before us — parents of five minor children — centers on whether respondent father's failure to pay support was established to be willful, justifying Family Court's order of commitment for contempt. We conclude that the record supports Family Court's determination and therefore reverse the Appellate Division order that overturned it.

The facts of this case begin with the parties' divorce on May 16, 1990, by a final decree incorporating (but not merging) a May 7 separation agreement. The agreement provided that respondent — a self-employed certified public accountant — would pay petitioner child support of $225 per week and maintenance of $375 per week for 10 years, with maintenance decreasing after that time. As the ensuing recitation shows, the three years that followed the

66

parties divorce were marked *66 by petitioner's persistent efforts to enforce the financial provisions of the separation agreement.

Barely three months after the divorce, on August 31, 1990, petitioner first sought enforcement of respondents obligation and he countered with a petition for modification. Before the year was out, on December 11, 1990, petitioner filed her first violation petition, which resulted in a decision and order dated March 13, 1991 granting petitioner judgment in the amount of arrears ($13,300), directing no change in the support obligation, and "reluctantly" concluding that respondent's violation was not willful.

After a second violation petition filed the following month, the parties on November 8, 1991 entered into a stipulation in open court reducing maintenance to $250 per week (with the $125 difference accruing as arrears until Dec. 1, 1993), while continuing child support at $225 per week. Arrears as of November 8, 1991 totaled $13,080.

Weeks later, on January 22, 1992, petitioner filed yet a third violation petition and respondent cross-petitioned for downward modification of the support obligation. Respondent asserted

http://scholar.google.com/scholar case?case=17680957280547654936&q=In+the+Matter+of+Bernadette... 8/17/2011

MATTER OF POWERS v. Powers, 653 NE 2d 1154- NY: Court of Appeals 1995 - Google Scholar Page 2 of 4

his inability to pay because of a decline in income resulting in his "dire financial condition." He also counterclaimed that petitioner was in better financial circumstances than he because she was gainfully employed and "living with a male person who has a substantial income — and indeed that since 1991, they were holding themselves out as husband and wife, thereby vitiating the maintenance obligation. Respondent complained that deductions from his business checking account by reason of petitioner's executions were impairing the cash flow of his business.

Before the Hearing Examiner some months later, respondent produced a 33-page schedule of weekly income and expenses for the period from September 29, 1991 to May 9, 1992, which he had prepared especially for the hearing. The schedule showed income for the seven-month period of $70,584 and expenses of $83,589 ($53,624 business and $29,965 personal expenses). Respondent submitted no substantiating documentation and no tax return for the year, claiming he had filed no tax return.

Respondent testified that he had additionally received some loans and gifts not reflected on the schedule. He further testified that he maintained no separate business or personal bank

67 accounts and no checking account in his own name (in *67 his words, "it wouldn't stay there very long") but deposited all his income in an account in the name of his current wife, who worked periodically for him and had no independent income.

Between the effective date of the November 8, 1991 stipulation and the close of evidence, respondent made less than half of the agreed-upon payments. Arrears grew by $8,425, reaching a total of $21,505.

Based on this evidence, the Hearing Examiner concluded that respondent's violation was willful, characterizing his attempts to explain any changes in his situation since the November 8 in-court stipulation as "pathetic." The Hearing Examiner found that respondent "presented no credible reason to overcome the presumption that nonpayment creates;" noted that he was a certified public accountant $21,505 in arrears who had stipulated to the disputed obligations; and directed respondent to appear before Family Court on July 17, 1992, for confirmation and sentencing.

On respondent's cross petition to modify the support order, petitioner testified that she was an apprentice barber earning $300 to $400 per month and that her financial circumstances had not changed, but that she had been receiving approximately $200 in monthly rent. The Hearing Examiner found that respondent had "failed to present any proof that his financial condition had worsened since the November 8, 1991 stipulation." Although respondent claimed that he was unaware of petitioner's receipt of rent, the Hearing Examiner noted that such fact had existed when the stipulation was made and he refused to modify the order.

On August 7, 1992, Family Court confirmed the Hearing Examiner's finding of willful violation, held respondent in contempt, and sentenced him to 60 days in the Saratoga County Jail. Sentence was suspended, however, on condition that respondent make payments in accordance with the stipulation.

Petitioner subsequently filed a fourth violation petition, along with an affidavit of the Supervisor of the Support Collection Unit dated December 16, 1992, stating that respondent was in arrears for $3,325 since the August 7 determination.

In a proceeding to establish respondent's violation of the condition of his suspended sentence, Family Court confirmed the finding of willful violation, concluding from its own

68 review of the record that there was "insufficient evidence to excuse or *68 justify the Respondents failure to honor his support obligations and that the Hearing Examiner's determination, dated June 5, 1992, that the Respondent was in wilful violation of his support obligations should not be disturbed." On the issues raised by the cross petition, Family Court held that respondent had failed to submit competent evidence either justifying a downward reduction in his support obligation or establishing that petitioner was holding herself out as another person's spouse.

On May 7, 1993 — the precise three-year anniversary of the parties' separation agreement Family Court ordered respondents suspended sentence revoked and committed him to the jail for a term of 60 days, or until he purged himself by payment of arrearages totaling $23,880.


Client

Highlight


The Appellate Division, one Justice dissenting, modified on the law by reversing the finding of contempt and order of commitment. The court held that, by reference to a "presumption" arising from nonpayment, the Hearing Examiner applied the wrong standard of proof and that respondent had sufficiently shown his inability to pay. According to the Appellate Division, "Family Court never found that respondent was financially capable and willfully failed to make the required payment." (207 AD2d 637, 638.) We now reverse and reinstate Family Court's order.

Analysis

Despite the extended factual scenario, the legal issue before us is a straightforward one: did petitioner sustain her burden of proof? Petitioner agrees that the burden of proof is hers to sustain, and that a finding of willful violation on which a person may be incarcerated requires clear and convincing evidence (an issue this Court has yet to determine).

The answer to the question posed begins with the relevant sections of the Family Court Act. As provided in section 454 (3), if a respondent is brought before court for failure to obey a lawful support order and, after hearing, the court is satisfied by competent proof that respondent indeed failed to obey such order, the court may "commit the respondent to jail for a term not to exceed six months", if the failure was willful. Willfulness requires proof of both the ability to pay support and the failure to do so (Family Ct Act § 455 [5]).

A respondent is prima facie presumed in a hearing under section 454 to have sufficient 69 means to support his or her *69 spouse and children under the age of 21 (Family Ct Act §

437). For purposes of section 454, moreover, failure to pay support as ordered itself constitutes "prima facie evidence of a willful violation" (Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]). Thus, proof that respondent has failed to pay support as ordered alone establishes petitioner's direct case of willful violation, shifting to respondent the burden of going forward (see, Besharov, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 454, at 388).

Respondent makes much of the Hearing Examiner's reference to a "presumption" of willfulness arising out of nonpayment, a word that troubled the Appellate Division as well. Whatever the fine distinctions among the various categories of mandatory and permissive presumptions (dubbed "the slipperiest member of the family of legal terms" in 2 McCormick, Evidence § 342, at 449 [4th ed 1992]), without question Family Court Act § 454 (3) (a) speaks of prima facie evidence of a willful violation, not a presumption. Although the word "presumption" should not have been used, the Hearing Examiner's inappropriate reference not only was immaterial in the context of his entire decision (he characterized respondent's showing as "pathetic") but was also rendered thoroughly inconsequential by Family Court's own independent review of the record in light of the statute. We conclude that Family Court correctly applied the statute.

Petitioner undisputedly presented prima facie evidence of the willful violation of a lawful support order. The testimony of the Support Collection Unit Supervisor that from November 15, 1991 (the effective date of the November 8 open-court stipulation) to the hearing date June 3, 1992, respondent had made only 11 of the nearly 32 payments due satisfied the requirement for competent proof of nonpayment. At that point, the burden of going forward shifted to respondent to rebut petitioner's prima facie evidence of a willful violation (see, Matter of Porcelain v Porcelain, 94 Misc 2d 891; see also, Richardson, Evidence §§ 95, 96, at 72 [Prince 10th ed]).

The parties differ on whether respondent satisfied this burden. Respondent urges that he did, and that the failing was petitioner's, in the words of the Appellate Division, "to counter with affirmative proof of respondent's financial ability to meet his support obligation" (207 AD2d, at 638). We agree with petitioner that respondent's burden was not satisfied.

70 The burden of going forward required respondent to offer *70 some competent, credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments (see, 2 McCormick, Evidence § 338, at 436 [4th ed 1992]; 9 Wigmore, Evidence § 2487, at 294 [Chadbourn rev 1981]). All that respondent showed, however, was that he had the ability to meet his support obligation — he acknowledged income in excess of $70,000 for a seven-month period — and that he spent, indeed overspent, his money on other things. As the Appellate Division dissenter observed, "respondent showed nothing other than the manner in which he chose to spend his


Client

Highlight

Client

Highlight

Client

Highlight

Client

Highlight

Client

Highlight

Client

Highlight

Client

Highlight

Client

Highlight

Client

Highlight

Client

Highlight


substantial income during the period in question" (207 AD2d, at 639). A showing that respondent simply exhausted his funds, with no credible evidence indicating the necessity for placing his alleged expenses ahead of support payments to his former spouse and five children, did nothing to satisfy his burden of going forward on the issue of financial inability (see, Matter of Department of Social Servs. v Hillock, 96 AD2d 625 [evidence that respondent had income during the period and that he used that income to pay other debts is evidence of willful violation of the court order of support]).

Overlooked as well by the Appellate Division was the fact that, in open court, respondent had agreed to pay the amounts in issue. In determining whether petitioner satisfied her burden of proof, Family Court could surely have considered that respondent had the ability to pay reduced sums he represented to the court he would pay (see, Matter of Harp v McCann, 97 A02d 868, 869 [respondent's agreement to fund child's education was subject to statutory presumption that he had sufficient means to pay]). Family Court was entitled to credit as well that respondent almost from Day One had defaulted on agreed-upon payments provided in the separation agreement resulting in a March 1991 judgment for arrearages; that he failed to meet reduced agreed-upon payments later in the year; and that he again failed to meet his commitment after sentence had been suspended in August on condition that he make the payments.

Family Court therefore correctly determined that respondent failed to meet his burden of going forward, and that petitioner sustained her burden of proving a willful violation justifying the finding of contempt and order of commitment.

Finally, in support of affirmance of the Appellate Division order respondent urges that Family 71 Court could not find him in contempt for failing to make required payments unless *71 it first

concluded that there was no other way of enforcing the order of support. Respondent's argument rests on Domestic Relations Law § 245 which requires Supreme Court to consider alternative means of enforcing a support order before holding the defaulting party in contempt. The flaw in the argument that Family Court should have no greater authority is that the two statutes are different. Unlike Domestic Relations Law § 245, Family Court Act § 454 explicitly allows the court a choice of probation or jail, without requiring that the court consider alternative enforcement measures.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the order of the Family Court, Saratoga County, granting petitioner's application to hold respondent in contempt, reinstated.

Order reversed, etc.

Go to Google Home - About Google - About Google Scholar

©2011 Google


Client

Highlight

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

Client

Pencil

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COPY

COUNTY OF KINGS

- -- ----x ELENA SVENSON,

Petitioner, DOCKET NO. F-28901-08

- against -

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,

Respondent. -------- - -- - - - ------x

330 Jay Street Brooklyn, New. York 11201

June 1, 2011

B E F 0 R E : JOHN FASONE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE

APPEARANCES: ELENA SVENSON Petitioner Pro Se

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY Respondent. Pro Se

TRANSCRIBER: DOROTHY FLORENTINO

Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording Transcript produced by transcription service

ANGIE DePOO COURT REPORTING SERVICE

86 Kensico Street

Staten Island, New York 10306

(718) 667-9484

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings

3

1 VOICE: This is number 21 and 22 on the

2 calendar, in the-matter of Krichevsky.

3

Parties, raise your right hand.

4

E L E N A S V E N S 0 N, was duly sworn and

testified as follows:

6

VOICE: Ma'am, in a loud, clear voice, your

7 name, your complete address, and social security number,

8

please.

9

MS. SVENSON: Elena Svenson, -.,- 2620

10

Ocean Parkway, 3K, Brooklyn, New York 11235.

11

VOICE: Sir, your name, your address, and social

12 security.

13

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Michael Krichevsky by special

14 visitation as belligerent claimant. This Court has no

15

jurisdiction.

16

VOICE: Have a seat.

17

THE COURT: I need an address and a social

18 security number, sir.

19

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'm not going to give you my

20 social security number. I'm by special visitation here.

21

THE COURT: Sir, you don't think we have it

22 already. I just want --

23

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Then, don't ask me, please.

24

THE COURT: -- make sure that it's correct.

25

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Then, don't ask me.

Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

Proceedings

1

THE COURT: We ask everybody. Can you just

2

rate for once, sir, and be polite.-_

3

MR. KRICHEVSKY: You know what, when I enter

4

this torture chamber, I cannot. You know, 1 1 m shaking.

5

THE COURT: I am struggling to be polite with

6

you, can you do me the same courtesy. I need your name,

7

address and social.

8

MR. KRICHEVSKY: You know what, I didn't invite

9

you to my home, okay. I'm forced to come here.

10

THE COURT: And I didn't invite you here, sir,

11

quite honestly.

12

MR. KRICHEVSKY: So, no, I'm forced to come here

13 under barrel of the gun. So, --

14

THE COURT: Yes, sir, that's what a Court

15

proceeding is all about.

16

Sir, --

17

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes.

18

THE COURT: -- I need address and a social

19

security nurrtber.

20

MR. KRICHEVSKY: You have it, write it. I'm not

21 going to say it.

22

THE COURT: Sir, --

23

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'm not givingjdiction.

24

THE COURT: -- I need an address and a social

25

security number.


Proceedings 5

1

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'm not giving you

2

jurisdiction.

3

THE COURT: You don't give me anything.

4

MR. KRICHEVSKY: That's --

5

THE COURT: All I need is your address and

6

social security number.

7

MR. KRICHEVSKY: You have it.

8

THE COURT: Sir, if mail goes to the wrong

9 address of if other information is wrong because you're

10 not cooperating, and it comes back to injure you, you have

11

nobody to blame but yourself.

12

Please have a seat.

13

All right. So, you did get my decision, though,

14

on your oral application for quote/unquote, standby

15 counsel; right?

16

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I object. It's wrong. It's a

17

double talk.

18

THE COURT: I don't care if you agree or not.

19

Did you get it?

20

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I did.

21

THE COURT: Thank you. Sir, let me ask you

22

something. Do you really think that acting like a child

23

is going to help you here today?

24

You know what this is about.

25

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I know what is this --


At a tenn of the Family Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at 330 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, on April 13, 2011


In the Matter of a Support Proceeding File #: 142040

Elena Svenson, SSN: XXX-XX-8546, Petitioner,

against -

Michael Krichevsky, SSN: XXX-XX Respondent.

Docket #: F-28901-08/10B

CSMS #: NV05003T1

~91

JheeáJ jr NOTICE: QJJR W{LL1JLEIL Tb OBEY /fHIS ORDER MALJ K L N

C&TION FOR CPJMINAL NON-SUPPORT OR CONTEMPT. YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE, STATE-ISSUED PROFESSIONAL, TRADE, BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES AND RECREATIONAL AND SPORTING LICENSES iND PERMITS; AND IMPOSITION OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY LIENS. Wiw iP-'- oc0 '€ ec-2Q

- t)L-t ) $ p SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THIS ORDER MAY BE FILED WITH THIS COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED IN COURT OR BY PERSONAL SERVICE, OR IF THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY MAIL, WITHIN 35 DAYS OF THE MAILING OF THE ORDER.

IT IS ORDERED that upon review of the caselaw submitted, respondent-father's oral application for "standby counsel" in this proceeding is denied.

The Court notes in this regard that the matter at hand does not involve a criminal defendant "facing a very serious charge" (People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12,453 N.Y. S .2d 418 [1982]), nor does it invoke any fundamental constitutional right to counsel ( Faretta v. California, 422 U.S.806 [19751)or privilege against self-incrimination (United States v. Johnson, F.Supp 538 (Middle District, Pennsylvania 1947). Neither, is the instant matter a civil contempt proceeding against a witness to bej ailed for failure to comply with a court order. United States v. Bobart Travel Agency, Inc. 699 F.2d 618 (2"' Cir. 1983).

Rather, petitioner-mother in the instant proceeding seeks a finding of willful violation of an existing order of child support. 1thou,gpne of the remedies available to her is a referraLith_e Lflsie4o a family court judge with a recommendation of incarceration for a period of up to six months, respondent-father is neither found to be indigent (he reciVs gross unemployment insurance

_other prop without the abjjjto ultimately "purge" any finding of willfulness by compliance with this Court's directives regarding rjaent oaccnied arrears. See, Family Court Act §262(a)(vi). See eR. , Price v. Turner, 387 S .C. 142, 691 S.B.2d 470 (2010), cert. granted U.S. , 131 S.Ct. 504 (2010)

Accordingly, as this Magistrate finds that respondent-father has knowingly, intelligently and

Page: 2 of 2 Docket No: F-28901 -08/1 OB

Order

voluntarily waived his right to counsel, court-appointed or otherwise, after full allocution of his rights, he is directed to be prepared to represent himself on the next hearing date - i.e. June 1, 2011 - or, to retain counsel of his own choosing. See, Matter of Tumminello v. Tumminello, A.D.3d

918 N.Y.S.2d 735 (slip op. 02018) (2Dep't 2011).

Dated: April 13, 2011 ENTER

John M. Fasone Magistrate

Check applicable box: O Order mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed]:______________________________________________ 0 Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom given]:

Proceedings

1

THE COURT: It's going to go on whether you

2

cooperate or not. So, why don't you just act like an

3

adult?

4

MR. KRICHEVSKY: You know, I'm acting --

5

THE COURT: I asked you a simple question.

6

MR. KRICHEVSKY: --jn a belligerent.

7

THE COURT: Sir, I'm not yelling at you. I'm

8

not berating you. I'm not demeaning you. I asked you a

9

simple question. Can you do me the courtesy of just

10

answering me like an adult in a polite, courtesy manner?

11

Can we operate on that premise?

12

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'll try.

13

THE COURT: Would it hurt you to do that?

14

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Actually, it does.

15

THE COURT: It does. Acting like an adult and a

16

courtesy human being hurts you.

17

MR. KRICHEVSKY: No, acting courteously does.

18

THE COURT: All right.

19

Ma'am, did you get the decision?

20

MS. SVENSON: I'm asking for -- to postpone this

21

date because I'm in process to sign retainer.

22

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I object.

23

MS. SVENSON: I need more time.

24

THE COURT: Stop. Process a what? You want to

25

hire an attorney?


Proceedings 7

1

MS. SVENSON: To looking -- yes, to looking --

2

THE COURT: Youtold me that last time.

3

MS. SVENSON: No. Last time I just decided.

4 •changed my mind to sign and looking for a lawyer --

5 attorney.

6

THE COURT: Well, actually, my note says that

you have found --

8

MS. SVENSON: I didn't last time. I said that -

9 - you advised me, actually, to looking for attorney.

10

THE COURT: As something her attorney. I can't

11

quite make it out.

12

MS. SVENSON: And I had just six weeks, and two

13

weeks it was Jewish holiday, and people were leaving for

14

holiday, Jewish holiday, kids holiday. So, I had like

15

four weeks only. I need more time.

16

THE COURT: All right. So, were you going to

17 accept assignment of counsel to represent you today?

18

MS. SVENSON: Yes.

19

THE COURT: That's for you, sir.

20

MR. KRICHEVSKY: For me?

21

THE COURT: Yes. You read my decision.

22


23

THE COURT: Were you going to accept assignment

24 of counsel?

25

MR. KRICHEVSKY: No.


Proceedings 8

THE COURT: No. You're going to --

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Standby counsel -- standby.

counsel.

THE COURT: Well, that's out.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Well, --

THE COURT: So, you either get assigned an

attorney or you represent yourself.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- you see, this is what --

this is what Supervising Judge Paula Hepner tells lawVers

in Brooklyn Bar Association on April 7th that criminal s

non-support of the child.Sq-

THE COURT: This is not criminal, sir.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: No, that's what I'm saying,

okay. What you write, you call my motions gibberish, and

what you do is, basically

THE COURT: I didn't say it was gibberish.

MR. KRICI-iEVSKY: -- you double talk.

THE COURT: I didn't say it was gibberish.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: What do you mean -- what is

definition of willful violation of non-payment? Where,

and does it -- does it end at incarceration?

THE COURT: Potentially.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: So, this is -- this is what

statute says, okay. So, if I don't pay -- I'm talking

theoretically -- the statute says, non-payment is a

Angie DePoinpo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings

1

criminal conduct.

2

THE COURT: Who said that?

3

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Statute.

4

THE COURT: What statute?

5

MR. RRICI-iEVSKY: Judge said it. What statute?

6

THE COURT: Yes, what statute?

7

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Right now, you know, I didn't

8

bring, but le me tell you something, this is what Judge

9

says.

10

THE COURT: This is not a criminal proceeding.

11

I have no criminal jurisdiction.

12

MR. KRICHEVSKY: That's right. That's

13

and you try to shovel criminal jurisdiction over me. You

14

want to tell me that this is civil proceedings --

15

THE COURT: It is.

16

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- -and in your mind, you're

17

going to conduct criminal, and then you're going to

18

convert it into criminal proceedings, and you're going to

19

20

THE COURT: Sir, --

21

MR. KRICHEVSKY: --convict me. I know that.

22

THE COURT: -- the Court of Appeals decision --

23

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I read laws.

24

THE COURT: -- Powers versus Powers, and been

25

decided if you owe arrears and if your violation iB


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

J / 1r 0 ___ '~+ ')/ -j'2- '~~ a" e "

44/J IO, & /

£ peora! L/'1 roceedings

willful, and if you're deemed w±llful, mine that

we're recommending a period of incarceration of six

months, we'll compel payments, that's my recommendation.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: If I -- if I threaten with

incarceration, it's a criminal proceedings.

THE COURT: No, that's not true.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: That's what law says.

THE COURT: That's not what the law says.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Then, you know what, looks like

you're playing games with me.

THE COURT: No, sir, you're --

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I've got a secret --

THE COURT: -- always trying to push me.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- .1 carcttell. That's what --

THE COURT: You're trying to push me --

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- you're telling to me.

THE COURT: -- to your own advantage.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: So, why don't you tell me what

law you operate? I move this Court to set up jurisdiction

and the law. I need to know what law do you use, okay. I

need to study this law because I'm studying law day and

night, okay,

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- and somehow, it doesn't

work. It seems to be I'm an idiot, okay. Twenty_years, I


GFI6 10/2004

At a term of the Family Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at 330 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, on July 26, 2010


In the Matter of a Support Proceeding File #: 142040 Docket #: F-28901-08/10C


- against -

ORDER OF DISMISSAL Elena Svenson,

Respondent.

A petition under Article 4 of the Family Court Act, having been filed in this Court on July 26, 2010 for the following: Modification of Order of Support and Order to Show Cause;

And the matter having duly come on to be heard before this Court and the following having appeared: Michael Krichevsky;

NOW, after examination and inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case, and after hearing the proofs and testimony offered in relation thereto, it is hereby

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, and the Order to Show Cause is not signed, (see Findings of Fact, attached); it is therefore

ORDERED that the petition herein is dismissed without prejudice.


Dated: August 5, 2010

ENTER

~ FWE COPY OF MADE IN THE MATT DSICNA ED \ S COPY AND SHOWN BY THE RECORDS OF TH

itOFNEWYORX

/ CLEh'OFCO

. J0 M Fasone, Support Magistrate

Check applicable box:. O Order mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed]:________ 0 Order received in court or [specify date(s) and to whom given]:

F.C.A. 413, 416, 439(e) 4-SM-3 11/2008


Tn the Matter of a Support Proceeding File #: 142040 Docket #: F-28901-08/10C

Michaei Krichevsky, Petitioner, CSMS #: NV05003T1

against - FINDINGS OF FACT

Elena Svenson, Respondent.

John M. Fasone, being the Support Magistrate before whom the issues of support in the above-entitled proceeding were assigned for determination, makes the following findings of fact:

Michael Krichevsky filed an order to show cause on July 26, 2010 seeking to restrain support collection unit from administratively enforcing an order dated February 3, 2010 which provided for the support of the following:

Name Date of Birth Social Security #

David Svenson 8/14/1994 XXX-XX- 1810

The following child resides with Elena Svenson: David Svenson.

Elena Svenson has not submitted proof of income, expenses, or support of others.

income, expenses, or support Mi ei Kri h n2 submitted oo4 others.

ft is Magistrate declines to sign the instant Order to Show Cause as the relief requested - namely, entry of a tem porary restrnjg order — is beyond the authority of a support magistrate, as is review of administrative deterthinations of Support Collection Unit.

I c Dated: August 12, 2010

fohn M Fasone Support Magistrate

Proceedings

11

1

was okay. I was making money. Now, I came to this Court,

2

and l became an idiot. I cannot read the law. I_ cannot ._

3

understand the law. Everythinn T NTrit -is gibberish.

4

THE COURT: I didn't say --

5

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Supreme Court Judge is -- you

6

know, --

7

THE COURT: All right, look --

8

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- read my writing.

9

THE COURT: -- stop, stop. Sir, --

10

MR. KRICHEVSKY: They don't call it gibberish.

11

THE COURT: -- sir, you have a pen in your hand,

12

write this down. Family Court Act, Section 545 -- 454,

13

I'm sorry, 455, 456. That all deals with non-criminal

14

violation of Family Court Orders of Support.

15

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Okay, I read this, and let me

16

tell you --

17

THE COURT: So, --

18

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- let me tell you, it's

19 unconstitutional because --

20

THE COURT: It is?

21

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes, it is not. That's why I

22

use --

23

THE COURT: Why is it unconstitutional?

24

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Because if I threaten with -- --..•. .•

25

if my life liberty is threatened and property threatened,


Proceedings

12

1 okay, I need to have a lawyer. You cannot and there

2

has to be jury to convict me.

3

THE COURT:. No.

4

MR. KRICHEVSKY: That's what --

5

THE COURT: How many times, sir, have I offered

6

you a free attorney and you've denied it.

7

MR. KRICHEVSKY: y're all corrupted. yLre

8

going to play your game.

9

THE COURT: All right, there we go.

10

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Let me ask you something.

11

brought some really serious documents --

12

THE COURT: I'm sure you did, but --

13

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- in this Court.

14

THE COURT: -- you're not giving me a chance,

15

sir, to look at them because we haven't had a hearing yet

16

17

MR. KRICHEVSKY: That's why I don't --

18

THE COURT: -- because we can't seem to get past

19

this issue of an attorney.

20

Now, sir, can I just tell you something. How

21

much longer do you want them to take half of your

22

unemployment check towards payment of what you owe?

23

MR. KRICHEVSKY: How much -- how much what?

24

THE COURT: How longer do you want this to go

25 on?

Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718). 667-9484

Proceedings 13

1

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I don't want it to go on. I

2

want you to leave me alone.

3

THE COURT: Then why won't you let me have a

4

hearing on your petition for modification?

5

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Because I don't trust you. Youj

6

jnying, okyThat's the poj.

7

THE COURT: Until I have a hearing, sir, I can't

8

change anything.

9

MR. KRICHEVSKY: So, why did you stay it?

10

THE COURT: I didn't stay anything. What are

11 you talking about?

12

MR. KRICHEVSKY: No. Last year, I filed -- I

13

filed petition for modification. You adjourned it for

14

five months, okay.

15

THE COURT: I dismissed it

16

MR. KRICHEVSKY: You protected her.

17

THE COURT: I dismissed it

18

MR. KRICHEVSKY: What did you --

19

THE COURT: And then -- I don't know.

20

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- you dismissed my

21

modification.

22

THE COURT: But, sir, right now, they're talking

23

your unemployment check.

PAIRI

MR. KRICHEVSKY: They're taking more.

25 THE COURT: Don't you want to tell me about


Proceedings

14

1

that?

2

MR. KRICHEVSKY: They're leaving $150.00 per

3 . week, oka.

4

THE COURT: But do you want that to continue?

5

MR. KRICHEVSKY: What are you torturing me?

6

THE COURT: No, sir, I'm wondering why --

7

MR. KRICHEVSKY: You're asking me?

8

THE COURT: -- it is that you won't let me have

9

a hearing on your petition for modification.

10

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Because I don't trust you

11

because as soon as a hearing starts, okay you're going

12

double talk, you're going to tell me I was not credible, I

13

you're going to tell me I did not convince you, okay.,

14

This document is not going to get --

15

THE COURT: I didn't say you were going to win.

16

MR. KRICHEVSKY: So, anything I will do, I'm

17

going to lose, I know it.

18

THE COURT: You know that.

19

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I tried to recuse you, you will

20

not go away.

21

THE COURT: You had a vision of some sort? You

22

saw yourself losing?

23

MR. KRICHEVSKY: It's a track-- it's a pattern..

24

THE COURT: No, it's not a pattern.

25

MR. KRICHEVSKY: You have a track record, okay.

Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (71 R' 7-9424

Proceedings

15

THE COURT: Because, sir, if I have a hearing,

2 maybe I'll agree that unemployment is your income right

3 -- • 0 c p-4(

to MR. KRICHEVSKY: Well, I'm not -- Lm not

gambling.

6

THE COURT: --,and maybe I'll modify it, --

7

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Maybe you gree.

8

THE COURT: - but you're not letting me get to

9

that issue, are you? Every time I adjourn this case

10

because you act up in Court, it's just that much longer

11

they take this money out of your check, but you want this

OVA

to continue?

13

MR. KRICHEVSKY: No, I don't, and you know it.

14

THE COURT: So, when are we going to have a

15

hearing on this?

16

MR. KRICHEVSKY: When -- -first of all, this

17

hearing must be dismissed because it's going on for more

18

than sixty days.

19

Now, Comrade Svenson, do you have certified copy

20

of the child support?

21

THE COURT: Sir, hey, wait, wait, wait.

22

VOICE: Sir, speak to the Magistrate.

23 II

THE COURT: You don't get away with that in my

24 courtroom.

25

MR. KRICHSVSKY: With what?

Angie DePoinpo Court Reporting Service (71R) 7-944

Proceedings . 16

1

THE COURT: Number one, you don't address the

2 other party. Number one, you don't demean her by calling

3

her comrade.

4

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I do not -- because --

5

THE COURT: Because why, --

6

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- that's how I call her.

7

THE COURT: -- she's a communist?

8

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes. She came from Russia. .-.-.-,-------.

9

THE COURT: Well, you establish that first, sir,

10

and then we :an get to her political affiliations, but

11

will you for once act like an adult.

12

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Okay.

13

THE COURT: Instead of a baby.

14

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'm not a baby.

15

THE COURT: You're acting like one. But you

16

don't want to have a hearing on your petition today; is

17

that what I'm hearing?

18

MR. KRICHEVSKY: On what petition, on

19 modification?

20

THE COURT: Yes.

21

MR. KRICHEVSKY: You made determination that --

22

THE COURT: I didn't make any determination. We

23

haven't had a hearing yet.

24

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Then, let me ask you, the order ,

25

that you wrote, you said that in Findings of Fact, you /

Angie Depompo Court Reporting Service (71R 7-9424

Proceedings 17

1 know that I am making $450.00 a week. That's whyu

2 wrote. So, you -- obviously, you got -- you got

3 THE COURT: I haven't made any findings yet. We

4

haven't had a hearing.

5 MR. KRICHEVSKY: No, the order about counsel,

6 and -- see, that's what I call double talk because when

7

it's convenient, you want to have a hearing on my income,

8 when you know my income.

9 you know my incpwhy dyi

10 petiear a? _I even asked for theount_ - -

11

THE COURT: Sir, I found that you weren't

12, indigent because your gross benefit is $405.00. That's

13

not double talk.

14

MR. KRICHEVSKY: No. A year ago --

15

THE COURT: And you're alleged to own other

16

property or assets. Thatcame up in the prior hearing

17

MR. KRICJ-iEVSKY: So, on -- so f you basically

18 ruled on allegations.

19

THE COURT: No.

20

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I thought that allegations --

21

THE COURT: I'm saying that, strictly speaking,

22

you're not entitled to free counsel, but because I really

23

can't get a straight answer out of you, I'm still willing

24

to assign one to you, maybe you have to pay the state back

25

for that, but I can't get a straight answer out of you on


Proceedings

this.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: It's simple, okay. I'm making

450.00, and you know it, and I submitted -- I submitted

documents. You told meI did not submit it, okay. You

conducted start chamber hearing a year ago.

THE COURT: I don't know what you're talking

about.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Let me tell you. I'll tell you

what. You wrote in your order that I did not submit my

income, that petitioner did not submit her income, that's

why my motion for modification was denied.

THE COURT: Read to me what I wrote. -

MR. KRICHEVSKY: You have it.

THE COURT: No, you have it. You're quoting it,

you read it.

-MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'm going -- I may not have it

right here.

THE COURT: Oh, interesting. -I know what I

wrote.

While he's looking, ma'am, what is this issue

about an attorney? I can't keep adjourning this because

the gentleman does have a petition pending, and it looks

like they are taking half his unemployment check.

MS. SVENSON: Because I have --

MR. KRICHEVSKY: 80%.

Angie D.ePornpo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings 19

1

THE COURT: Stop it. What is it?

2

MS. SVENSON: I didn't have enough time to find

3 attorney.

4

THE COURT: Since April?

5

MS. SVENSON: Yes, because starting from April

6

15th, was Jewish holiday. Attorney what I looking for,

7

they were not available. I need more time. I had just

8

four weeks.

9

THE COURT: Well, today is not a Jewish holiday,

10

ma ' am.

11

MS. SVENSON: Not today.

12

THE COURT: And the holidays were over at the

13

end of April.

14

MS. SVENSON: Well, I had -- that's four weeks,

15

what I'm talking about.

16

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I have a box like this

17

(indicating), --

18

THE COURT: Sir.

19

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- and itTs there, but I can

20

tell you --

21

THE COURT: Read me the quote.

22

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- I can tell your reply was --

23

what did it show was Temporary Restraining Order. It was

24 II

done in August of 2010.

25 II

Here I say that I am making $450.00, and I'm


Proceedings 20

1

even telling you that --

2

THE COURT: $405.00.

3

MR. KRICHEVSKY -- the Court order must be

4

modified to $300 -- $315.19, okay. That -- I'm telling

5

you even, okay. I'm giving you math.

6

THE COURT: Sir, you were going to quote me some

7 prejudicial remark I made in my -- in my finding.

8

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I didn't bring it with me

9

because I have this big box of litigation papers.

10

THE COURT: And because it doesn't exist --

11

MR. KRICHEVSKY: It exists. If you --

12

THE COURT: -- except in your imagination.

13

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- if you give me this jacket,

14

I'll find it there. I couldn't bring it -

15

THE COURT: I don't have time for that, sir.

16

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I knew that. So, I knew I'

17

not going to get any courtesy. That's why -- you know,

18

that's why I'm not po

19

THE COURT: Right, because you need an excuse.

20

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Where is -- where is the order

21

on this Order to Show Cause? Look it up, please. I filed

22

this order --

23

THE COURT: Sir, I denied to sign it because

24 everything that you're alleging in there is really better

25

considered on your appeal.

Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service 1"71 ON 7...QiII

Proceedings 21

1

MR. KRICHEVSKY: But what happened, yp_

2 conducted hearing without me present or without petitioner

CI present, and this order you wrote that I didn't submit

4

anything, and that's why it's denied.

5

THE COURT: Have a seat, please, sir.

6

Answer -- answer me one question straight out,

7

sir.

8


9

THE COURT: Do you own property?

10

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes, I do. Actually, I'm not.

II

Bank owns it. I owe mortgage.

12

THE COURT: Are there properties in your name.

13

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I owe more than million

14

dollars. I owe more than million dollars, and it's all in

15

the pleadings.

16

THE COURT: How many properties are in your

17 name?

18

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Two.

19

THE COURT: Do you collect rents from any of

20

those properties?

21

MR. KRICHEVSKY: No.

22

THE COURT: Have you ever?

23

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Actually, -- actually, the I re is

24

a -- there is a litigation going on regarding collection

25

of the rent, and courtesy of the petitioner on this -- on

Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (71\ 7-OA2A

Proceedings 22

1 out joint property, there is litigation going on in the

2

Supreme Court.

3

THE COURT: Ms. Svenson is asking the Court to

4

divide the properties between yourselves.

5

MR. KRICHEVSKY: No, it's another one.

6

THE COURT: My question is --

7

MR. KRICHEVSKY: It's another one.

8

THE COURT: What other one?

9

MR. KRICHEVSKY: The property is in foreclosure,

10

and we are not paying maintenance, and I appear in the

11

action. Actually, I am in six actions, okay. There is --

12

there is foreclosure proceedings against Seagate, okay,

13

and I'm sure she knows it, you know it, her lawyer knows

14

it, I submitted documents, I submitted pleadings.

15

Everything is submitted, and you choose to ignore it, and

16

that's why I think this Court is corrupt.

17

THE COURT: There are two properties that are in

18

foreclosure?

19

MR.. KRICHEVSKY: Yes.

20

THE COURT: Have you ever received rents from

21

tenants in any of those properties?

22

MR. KRICHEVSKY: No.

23

THE COURT: Never, ever?

24

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes. I had tenant who was

25 II

tenant for two months.

Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service AOA

Proceedings 23

1

THE COURT: When? How long ago?

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Last year. I don't remember

3

exactly date.

4

THE COURT: Did you ever show me your 2010 tax

5

return -- 2010, your tax return?

6

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I believe I did, $56,000.00.

7

THE COURT: I think that was the W-2. I didn't

8 -- I didn't believe it.

9

Did you ever file taxes, though, with the IRS?

10

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I did. Yes, I did.

11

THE COURT: Do you have the filed tax return

12 with you?

13

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Right now, I don't have it with

14 me. Like I said, I have -- I have probably fifty pounds

15 plastic bucket --

16

THE COURT: Yes, but, sir, -

17

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- from Home Depot --

18

THE COURT: if you want to help yourself in

19

this courtroom, your tax return doesn't weigh fifty

20

pounds, you might be' -- it might be worthwhile to bring

21

it.

22

MR. KRICHEVSKY: No. The default case is fifty

23 pounds. I don't know what I might need.

24

THE COURT: How about we start with the

25 essentials. Your tax return --


Proceedings 24

1

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I don't know what

2 you know. I don't know what you're going--t-"o.

3

THE COURT: What the statute requires, sir.

4

MR. KRICHEVSKY: You're unpredictable.

5

THE COURT: Tax returns, pay stubs, if working,

6

financial disclosure booklet.

7

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Sir, you're unrecLctabl. I

8

cannot predict what you're going t-

9

THE COURT: I'm not unpredictable, sir.

10

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- and I'm --

11

THE COURT: Quite honestly, I'm very

12 predictable. I do the same thing in every case.

13

Ma'am,

14

MS. SVENSON: Yes.

15

THE COURT: -- do you know if he has tenants in

16 any of these properties?

17

MS. SVENSON: Yes.

18

THE COURT: How many?

19


20

THE COURT: Stop. How many?

21

MS. SVENSON: How many?

22

THE COURT: Yes.

23

MS. SVENSON: I don't know how many, but I know

24

that he had tenant.

25

THE COURT: Why do you know he -- no, does he


Proceedings 25

1

have tenants, not that he had tenants? Does he have

2 tenants now? He says both properties are in foreclosure.

3

MS. SVENSON: Atlantic -- on Atlantic Avenue,

4

it's not foreclosure. Some --

5

MR. KRICHEVSKY: It's a lie?

6

MS. SVENSON: It's not foreclosure.

7

THE COURT: Stop interrupting, sir.

8

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'm not interrupting, I'm

9

objecting on time.

10

MS. SVENSON: (Inaudible) two families --

11

MR. KRICHEVSKY: If I don't object right away, -

12

13

THE COURT: Then say, objection.

14

MR. KRICHEVSKY: That's what I said.

15

THE COURT: Not, it's a lie. That's not an

16 objection.

17

MS. SVENSON: It's two-family house, worth over

18

a million dollars --

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

not you.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: She's lying --

THE COURT: Sir, would you stop that.


THE COURT: I make decisions as to credibility,

Last time, I couldn't hear.

MS. SVENSON: It's not foreclosure.

Angie DePoxnpo Court Reporting Service (718 ) 667-9484

Proceedings 26

1

THE COURT: What's that?

2

MS. SVENSON: It's not foreclosure on Atlantic

3

Avenue.

4

THE COURT: But is there a tenant there?

5

MS. SVENSON: Yes.

6

THE COURT: How do you know?

7

MS. SVENSON: Mutual friend.

8

THE COURT: How do you know? Have you seen a

9

tenant? Have you collected rents from a tenant? Have you

10

seen --

11

MS. SVENSON: No, no, I didn't.

12

THE COURT: Mr. Krichevsky collect rent from a

13

tenant?

14

MS. SVENSON: No.

15

THE COURT: Did he tell you he receives rent

16

from a tenant?

17

MS. SVENSON: No.

18

THE COURT: No. What about the other property?

19

MS. SVENSON: Oceana (phonetic), yes, it's

20

foreclosure.

21

THE COURT: Are there tenants in the property?

22

MS. SVENSON: There were, not now.

23

THE COURT: Not now. All right.

24

I have to take some action, ma'am, on the

25 I

gentleman's petition for modification. It's so far over


Proceedings 27

standards and goals it's not even close to being funny

azor"4 Finding, sir, that right now your only income is

from unemployment, I'm modifying_theor der down to $298 . 0 0,

per month. That's what you should be paying for one chil d

on your unemployment benefit.

MS. SVENSON: Your Honor, I know that he's still

working.

THE COURT: Well, ma'am, I can't keep adjourning

this thing.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Excuse me, you're telling me --

THE COURT: Sir, stop it.

MS. SVENSON: I have video. I have CD.

THE COURT: Ma'am, stop. You've got video of

him working?

MS. SVENSON: Yes. He's working. He's working

from his home office.

THE COURT: There are cameras over his

workplace?

MS. SVENSON: No, but my previous attorney, he's

hired private investigator p,.,k- " (-q"-3 V ~-p 19 ' , - , - r -t q be,

THE COURT: Yes, and?

MS. SVENSON: And private investigator had the

report that he's working from his home --

THE COURT: So, this person is going to come in


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings

28

and testify to what he's seen?

MS. SVENSON: Yes, he will.

THE COURT: On the next hearing date?

MS. SVENSON: Yes.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: No, he won't.

THE COURT: Stop it, sir.


THE COURT: Sir, I don't want to hear your

objections now.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: You must. I'll tell you why

you must.

THE COURT: No, because you're interrupting.

Stop it.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Okay. I'm going to sit quiet.

I'm going to wait when you ask me --

THE COURT: I really wish you would, sir.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Okay.

THE COURT: $298.00 per month, effective today ,

(June 1st. Next payment is

MR. KRICHEVSKY: It's not effective today. It's

retroactive.

THE COURT: Effective today, June 1st.

MR. KRICI-IEVSKY: Why is it today? This is --

THE COURT: Because I said so. Can you stop

interrupting me, sir? We're going back to being impolite

A - . Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service

(718) 667-9484

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 F

25 I

Proceedings 29

again. I thought you weren't going to do that anymore.

June 15th. I can't tell you, sir, that this is

going to change what's coming out of your check because

you owe so much. Ultimately, if you prevail on your

petition, yes, I may be able to adjust things, but you

still owe substantial arrears.

MR. KRICHEVSKY: But when can I start talking?

I have questions.

THE COURT: After you leave the cortm, f>

Eit. - ( c i -e you kee

All I'm doing is modifying on your petition,

adjourning the lady's petition for enforcement -- one last

absolute time, ma'am. If your attorney is not here next

time, if your investigator is not here next time, it's

going forward with whatever proof you can present.

What is the name of this investigator, ma'am?

Do you know?

MS. SVENSON: I know, but the name not in front

of me, the correct name.

THE COURT: You got to be more on top of things,

ma'am.

MS. VENSON: I will bring it next time.

THE COURT: In my decision, I told both of you

to be prepared to go forward today.

MS. SVENSON: It depended when is going to be

Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service ("71 RI 667-9484

on

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Proceedings

30

1 next time.

2 THE COURT: Good question. Normally, my

3 adjournments are running into October, but I have to

4 decide these matters a lot sooner than that.

5 Well, let me ask you this, ma'am. How much more

6 time do you need?

7 MS. SVENSON: Not less than two months.

8 THE COURT: Not less than two. You got to do

9 less than two.

10 MR. KRICHEVSKY: I object to adjournm_he

11 Court rules say no more than one adjournment to get an

12 attorney, and since I started reading Family Court rules

13 you do not follow Family Court rules.

14 The contempt proceedings must be done within

sixty days, and if there isan adjournment, no more than

16 seventy days -- seven -- seven days for adjournment.

17 THE COURT: I'm familiar with those regulations.

18

MR. KRICHEVSKY: So, you do not follow theim.

19

THE COURT: Mostly because of your

20

interruptions, but --

21 MR. KRICHEVSKY: No. You -- you adjourned case

22 from November 18th to March 16th. This is not seven days.

23 THE COURT: (Inaudible) period of some point,

24 I I'm sure, but can you let me do what I need to do today?

25 II You might find the information useful.


Proceedings 31

1 MR. KRICHEVSKY: So, that's the problem. No

2 matter what I do, you don't care. Okay, I'm not following

3 my rules, so what.

4 THE COURT: I didn't say that, so stop putting

5 words in my mouth.

6 Wednesday, July 6th, in the afternoon, 2:30.

7 VOICE: What time?

8 THE COURT: 2:30.

9 VOICE: 2:30.

10 THE COURT: Marked absolutely final.

11 VOICE: July what, Magistrate?

12 THE COURT: 7/6. That's as much time as you

13 have, ma'am. It's gone on way too long.

14 MR. KRICHEVSKY: I object. It must b_

15 dismissed.

16 THE COURT: Sir, you didn't think I was

17

listening before when you said that three times? I heard.

18

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes. I read in the rules that

19

20

THE COURT: (Inaudible) 2:30.

21

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I read in the rules when yu

WAI object, you renew your objection.

23 Now, what happened today? I don't understand

24 what happened today.

25 II VOICE: Parties are excused. Step out.

Angie DePoinpo Court Reporting Service (718 ) 667-9484

32

1 VOICE: Step out, please.

2 VOICE: Step out of the courtroom.

3 MR. KRICHEVSKY: The hearing is a joke.

4

5 * * * * *

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


33

1

2

3

4

5

6 * * * * * *

7

8 I, Dorothy Florentino, certify that the foregoing

9 transcript of proceedings in the Family Court, Kings County, of

10 Elena Svenson v. Michael Krichevsky, Index No. F-28901-08, was

11 prepared using the required transcription equipment and is a

12 true and accurate record of the proceedings.

13

14 /7

15

Dorothy Flrentino

16 Agency Name: ANGIE DePOMPO COURT

17

REPORTING SERVICE 86 Kensico Street

18

Staten Island, New York 10306

19 Date: July 2, 2011

20

21

22

23

24

25

Angie. Depompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

/

port Magistrate

GFI5 1012004 At a term of the Family Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at 330 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, on July 13, 2010


Ln the Matter of a Support Proceeding File #: 142040 Docket #: F-28901-08/10B

Michael Krichevsky, SSN: _L Petitioner, CSMS #: NV05003T1

- against - ORDER ON MOTION #01

Elena Svenson, SSN. Respondent.

A motion having been filed with this Court on July 26, 2010, requesting an order on a(n) Motion for court reporter and a Support Magistrate of this Court upon examining the motion papers and supporting affidavit(s) and hearing testimony in relation thereto and the following having appeared: Michael Krichevsky, finds that electronic recording/transcription of family court support proceedings have been authorized by the administrative judge, and it is therefore

ORDERED that the motion of Michael Krichevsky is denied.


Dated: July 13, 2010

ENTER

Cheek applicable box: D Order mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed]:_______ El Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom given]:

6 LA A C--/1 2,6 Lxf a-5 d-9-

r 2- 'P 4ce oV

o1J f

Documents

OBJECTION TO JULY 6 JUDICIAL TORTURE