*NEW * MR. CORLETTA DEMONSTRATES EXPERTISE IN MATRIMONAL MOTION PRACTICE

Demonstrating an ability to concisely summarize facts in a brief period of time, Mr. Corletta, through aggressive advocacy, obtained superior results in two contested matrimonial cases. In MJ v. RJ (Monroe Cty Sup. Ct. 5/21/07), Mr. Corletta successfully defended a Temporary Maintenance Motion brought by Plaintiff-wife. The husband’s former attorney left the case when the motion was served. The motion sought over $1000.00 per month in temporary maintenance and payment of all expenses for the martial residence, despite the fact the wife worked and had substantial assets of her own.

Quickly marshaling the facts and interposing an effective set of answering papers, Mr. Corletta pointed out that the husband was paying most of the bills already, had kept them current, and there was no reason the wife could not take care of her reasonable needs out of her own income.

 Mr. Corletta was successful not only in obtaining a denial of the Temporary Maintenance motion, but in also obtaining a denial of the Plaintiffs motion for attorney fees, pointing out that it was absurd she should not use her own assets to pay her attorney.

Mr. Corletta pointed out the frivolousness of the motion and argued that many matrimonial attorneys make such motions because if they are representing the wife, who is usually the non-monied or less-monied spouse, such relief if there for the asking with out looking at the law.

Mr. Corletta methodically picked apart the wife’s moving papers and pointed out that under both the facts and the law not only was no award warranted, but that none was even necessary, and that the motion should not have been brought to begin with.

Not surprisingly, the wife immediately changed attorneys following her unsuccessful motion. Mr. Corletta exposed the frivolousness of her application, in that she actually expected her husband to pay her credit card debt for her own personal expenses such as clothing, jewelry, etc. Mr. Corletta correctly noted that the purpose of maintenance is for needs, not wants.

In another case, Mr. Corletta aggressively prosecuted a motion on behalf of a poor non-monied spouse in EH v. JH (Wayne Cty Sup. Ct. 6/12/08) In that case, Defendant-Husband committed domestic violence against the wife, resulting in an issuance in an Order of Protection. As a result of the Defendants conduct, Plaintiff-wife was forced to leave her home, which she has brought to the marriage, and her job. Although she successfully obtained an Order of Protection in Family Court, the husband remained in the marital residence, as the Order of Protection did not require him to vacate the marital residence.

Upon entry into the case Mr. Corletta recognized this problem. He first attempted to negotiate with the husband’s attorney, in order to get him to leave the marital residence voluntarily. When the husband’s attorney stonewalled and delayed, Mr. Corletta would have none of it. He immediately filed a matrimonial action and a Motion for Exclusive Use and Occupancy, requesting attorneys fees and contribution towards the mortgage payments because the husband was not paying them, while continuing to reside in the home.

Still, the husband’s attorney stonewalled and delayed. He submitted no response to the moving papers, and instead, two days before motion argument, informed Mr. Corletta his client would vacate in three weeks.

At the actual motion argument, Mr. Corletta was informed the husband now had moved out and was asked to withdraw his motion. Declining to do so, Mr. Corletta vigorously and accurately laid out the facts in the case and not only obtained an Order of Exclusive Use and Occupancy for his client, thereby restoring her to her home immediately, but obtained an award of attorneys fees and a judgment against the husband for a portion of mortgage payments he had refused to pay. By refusing to tolerate the husbands stonewalling and arrogant disregard of the facts, Mr. Corletta won a substantial victory for his beleaguered client.