Family Court
Mr. Corletta also handles a wide variety of cases in Family Court, including custody and support cases, paternity cases, family offense cases, juvenile delinquency cases, and adoption cases.
Family Court is the Court people who are not married go to for support and custody determinations. People who are married can also use Family Court. People who are unmarried may not use the divorce courts, but instead must use Family Court.
Family Court also deals with "Family Offense" or "Domestic Violence" cases, which involve the obtaining of Orders of Protection.
In a Domestic Violence case that was the subject of over one and one-half years of litigations, Mr. Corletta utilized his overall knowledge of both criminal law and civil procedure to obtain a permanent two year Order of Protection for his client in A.W. v D. W. (4/28/05). In that case Respondent, the former husband of Mr. Corletta's client, after losing at trial, brought a variety of post-judgment attacks, including attacking the quality of his legal representation, filing a "Double Jeopardy" claim, and filing an "issue preclusion" claim. Mr. Corletta turned aside all challenges, prevailing on every issue for his client in a five page written Decision filed on April 28, 2005, which dealt with complicated issues of criminal law and civil procedure. The ex-husband will be required to stay away from Mr. Corletta's client and their teenage son for two years, and obtain anger management counselng.
Mr. Corletta won a great victory for his client, a retired police officer on a fixed income, in Matter of D.W. v. A.C.W. (Monroe Cty. Family Ct., 6/2/06). Mr. Corletta's client was the subject of repeated serial Petitions filed by her ex-husband, who, amongst other things, tried to disavow paternity of his son, and reduce his Child Support Order to zero. Mr. Corletta successfully resisted all these attempts, exposing his client's ex-husband as a fraud. Mr. Corletta discovered and then adduced testimony from the ex-husband that he had received over a quarter of a millon dollars in a personal injury settlement just after he filed his Petition to reduce his child support obligation to zero. The Family Court Support Magistrate not only denied the Petition, but awarded Mr. Corletta attorney's fees.
In a related matter, where Mr. Corletta had won an Order of Protection for the same client, Mr. Corletta used this information to terminate the ex-husband's assigned (free) counsel on appeal, arguing that he had failed to disclose his receipt of the personal injury settlement to authorities. Left without an attorney, the ex-husband was unable (or unwilling) to pursue the frivolous appeal, thereby saving Mr. Corletta's client thousands of dollars in having to defend a frivolous appeal. It also will deter him from filing frivolous Petitions in the future, because he will not be able to get a free attorney. The ex-husband is also being investigated by County authorities for non-disclosure of assets, and may have to pay for previously rendered legal services. Mr. Corletta's tenaciousness on behalf of his client has won him his client's unwavering respect.
Mr. Corletta's persistence and knowledge of the law paid off for his client, in C.H. v. D. H. (Monroe County Family Ct., 7/28/06). In that case, Petitioner-Mother, the non-custodial parent, attempted to reduce her support obligation to zero by arguing that her nineteen (19) year-old son was emancipated due to his having been arrested and being on probation, and because he was living with his paternal grandmother on a temporary basis.
The Petitioner-Mother ignored the fact the son remained under heavy supervision, both from his father and his grandmother, and was fully complying with his probation. Incredibly, she attempted to transfer responsibility for her son to the Probation Department. Further, the child was in a trade school being paid for by his father and grandmother. The testimony at the hearing showed he was being heavily supervised by his father.
Despite this undisputed evidence and a plethora of caselaw holding that the issue with respect to emancipation is whether the child is under the parents' supervision and control, the Support Magistrate ruled in favor of Petitioner-Mother, holding that because the child was residing outside his father's home, this constituted emancipation. The Support Magistrate also ignored the fact that this child was unemployed, being completely supported by his father and grandmother, and under his father's tight supervision and control.
Undaunted, Mr. Corletta appealed to Monroe County Family Court. In a sharply worded four page opinion, a Family Court Judge reversed the Support Magistrate's Findings and reinstated the prior Support Order, holding that the child was not emancipated and that it was irrelevant where he physically resided, as long as he remained under his father's supervision and control Further, the Judge criticized the Support Magistrate for "emasculating" the father's authority and control.
This Decision, while providing useful guidance on what constitutes emancipation for young adults in the eighteen to twenty-one year-old range, where this issue often arises, also was a victory for custodial father, who often bear the entire burden of support without help from non-custodial mothers.
Quick analysis of facts and a prompt application to dismiss benefited an out of town client in G.K. v.D.K. (Monroe Cty. Family Court 6/20/07) In that case, Mr. Corletta’s client resided out of town, and could not afford to make frequent (and costly) court appearances.
Appearing for his client at the initial appearance, Mr. Corletta filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Modification which he recognized was clearly defective under applicable law. The Support Magistrate agreed, and dismissed the Petition, thereby not only obviating any further appearances for Mr. Corletta’s client, but obtaining dismissal without even one Court appearance.
*NEW* MR. CORLETTA OBTAINS DISMISSAL OF SUPPORT MODIFICATION PETITION
Often custodial parents experiencing financial problems believe the way to alleviate them is to get more money in child support. Mr. Corletta demonstrated that a greater showing is required in Matter of C.C. v. D.C. (Monroe Cty. Family Ct., November 27, 2007). In that case, the custodial parent, after having just agreed to a level of support in a Divorce Decree filed just two (2) months before, claimed she needed more money.
At trial, she made generalized and non-particularized claims, and basically testified it was “not right” that Mr. Corletta ‘s client was paying what he had been ordered to pay, and what she had agreed to
Mr. Corletta, in defending his client, properly disclosed he received a personal injury settlement, but at the same time argued that the custodial parent (the mother) had just agreed to a certain level of support a few months before, and had made absolutely no showing of any increased needs for the children, as measured from the date of her prior Agreement. He cited recent Appellate Division case law in support of his client’s position.
In a rare victory for non-custodial fathers, the Court agreed, stating that Petitioner’s proof was completely insufficient. Once again, Mr. Corletta demonstrated that proper handling of a case, and knowledge of the law, will go a long way towards producing favorable results for the client. Here, Mr. Corletta cited well established case law that requires a particularized showing of increased needs of the children since the date of the last Support Order or Agreement. Given the recency of the prior Support Order, and the mother’s agreement to it, her filing a Petition just two months later obviously lacked legal merit.
*NEW* MR. CORLETTA USES KNOWLEDGE OF BANKRUPTCY LAW TO CLIENT’S ADVANTAGE IN FAMILY COURT
Assisting an out-of -state client obtain a dismissal of a Family Court Petition seeking enforcement of a twelve (12) year-old Judgment of Divorce, Mr. Corletta used his knowledge of the bankruptcy law to obtain a dismissal in Matter of CB. v. D.D. (Monroe Cty. Family Ct., January 10, 2008).
In that case, Respondent’s ex-wife attempted to enforce a twelve (12) year-old Separation Agreement, which was incorporated into a Divorce Decree, by serving Mr. Corletta’s out-of-state client with a voluminous Petition seeking Judgment for approximately $57,000.00, which was done as a result of an equitable distribution settlement in 1995.
The Petitioner, who lives in New York, failed to mention that there had been extensive Florida Bankruptcy Court proceedings that had been ongoing since 2004, and that despite her repeated opposition, the same debt had been discharged in bankruptcy approximately two (2) weeks prior to filing of her Petition. The Petition made no effort to disclose the Florida Bankruptcy Court proceedings.
Instead, it sought enforcement of the prior Separation Agreement, and a finding of a willful violation for failure to pay, which could have resulted in a sentence of incarceration for Mr. Corletta’s client.
Going to work, Mr. Corletta researched the extensive Florida Bankruptcy proceedings, and filed an extensive Motion to Dismiss with the Court, supplemented by two Supplemental Memoranda, in which he provided the Court with numerous documents from the Florida Bankruptcy proceeding.
Although the Court was obviously not familiar with bankruptcy law, Mr. Corletta was able to educate the Court, and provide the Court with enough information so that it saw not only that Petitioner’s Petition lacked legal merit, but that it was also frivolous and sanctionable.
Therefore, Mr. Corletta not only saved his client a possible sentence of incarceration, but he also turned the matter around against the Petitioner despite her screaming, crying, ranting, and raving in Court, and obtained an award of attorneys fees due to her filing a meritless Petition. Mr. Corletta showed that Petitioner was well aware of the Florida Bankruptcy Court proceedings, and had been litigating before the Bankruptcy Court in Florida for approximately three and one-half (3 ½) years in attempting to get it to rule her debt was non-dischargeable. Mr. Corletta showed she failed in virtually every legal argument she made in Bankruptcy Court, and was only attempting to use Monroe County Family Court to place her ex-husband at a procedural disadvantage, and to get a different result by misleading the Court.
Through his efforts, Mr. Corletta was not only able to obtain a dismissal and an award of attorneys fees for his financially beleaguered client, but was also able to send a message to Petitioner that she should not attempt to file any further Petitions in Family Court, or engage in further forum shopping or game playing.
Needless to say, Mr. Corletta’s out-of-state client was quite grateful for his diligence and the exceptional result obtained. Mr. Corletta demonstrated the increasing interplay between domestic relations law and bankruptcy law, and how it is useful domestic relations law practitioners to have a working knowledge of the Bankruptcy Code. Mr. Corletta welcomes domestic relations law cases raising bankruptcy issues.
Family Court also deals with juvenile delinquency cases, which are criminal cases for those between the ages of seven and sixteen. These cases are handled much like criminal cases; however the ultimate dispositions do not involve convictions for crimes or incarceration in regular prisons or jails. Mr. Corletta is well versed in all of these areas. If you should have a matter involving Family Court, please contact him for a consultation.
|
