_
.'
./'1
i
TII.84/~7/~e.aB:23:26.3982fi
STATEOFMICHIGANOAKLANDCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURTMICHAELJAMESMALIK,SR.,Plaintiff,
~=~
0-769405-0M
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~111111111111111111111111111111111
vs.BROOKEANNEMALIK,
JUDGEJOAN
E.
YOUNG
.M~IK,Ml~J"iAE!'.
v
MALIK,BROOK§,
Defendant.
----------------------------~/
SEYBURN,KAHN,GINN,BESSandSERLIN,P.C.HenryM.Nirenberg(P36847)TovaShaban(P38392)AttorneysforDefendant2000TownCenter,Suite1500Southfield,MI48075(248)353-7620FLOOD,LANCTOT,CONNER
&
STABLEIN,P.L.L.c.DavidG.Gorcyca(P41352)AttorneyforPlaintiff401N.MainSt.RoyalOak,MI48067(248)547-1032EISENBERG
&
SPILMAN,P.C.LauraE.Eisenberg(P45463)AttorneyforPlaintiff26555Evergreen,Suite1120Southfield,MI48076(248)358-8880
----------------------------_1
DEFENDANT'SRESPONSETOPLAINTIFF'SMOTIONTOCOMPELSUBSTANCEABUSEASSESSMENTANDTREATMENTDefendant,BrookeAnneMalik,throughherattorneys,Seyburn,Kahn,Ginn,BessandSerlin,P.c.,insupportofherResponsetoPlaintiffsMotiontoCompelSubstanceAbuseAssessmentandTreatment,statesasfollows:1.Admit.2.DeniedthatPlaintiffparticipatedinanywayotherthanfinancialintheraisingoftheirminorson.Further,Defendantstatesthatforthefirst2
Y2
yearsoftheirson'slife,Plaintiffwasalmostcompletelynon-existentintermsofanyparentingatall..Herarelysawhissonfor
{00414795,1X>C)
morethanafewminuteshereandthere,maybeeverytwo(2)weeks.Infact,CameronspentthenightwiththePlaintiffexactlyonce,whenhewasthreeyearsoldandatDefendant'srequest.3Admit.4.Deniedasuntrue.Defendantdeniesthatshewasbehavinginanunusualmanner
{0041479S.DOC)
2
orthatshespentexcessivetimeawayfromtheirchildortheirhome.Defendantstatesthatonperhapsthreeoccasionsfornomorethanthreedayseachtime,shetravelledwiththePlaintiff,athisinsistence,toNewYorkCityinordertopurchaseahomethereandpurchasefurnishingsforthathome.5.Deniedasuntrue.Defendantwasnotsleepingexcessively.Inaddition,Defendantstatesthatchildcarewasnecessarywhileshewasathomewithhersonbecausethepartieshadjustmovedintotheirnewhomesincethemarriageandsheneededsupervisionfortheirthreeyearoldwhileunpackinghundredsofboxes,puttingeverythingaway,makingdecoratingdecisionsforthe5000squarefoothomewithabsolutelynoassistancefromPlaintiff.6.DeniedasuntruethatDefendant"engagedinafivedaylongalcoholanddrugbinge"whileatthevacationhomerentedbyPlaintiffinMiamiBeach,Florida.PlaintifffailedtodisclosetoDefendantthatthe16,000squarefoothouseherentedhadanotoriouspartyhistory.Further,Plaintifffailstoprovideanycrediblewitnessstatementstotheallegationscontainedinthisparagraph.Defendant,however,attachestotheBrief,affidavitsfromwitnessesthatrefuteanysuchbehavioronherpartduringtheweekshespentatthisrentalhome.DefendantdeniesthatPlaintiffwasinanywayinvolvedwithCameron'schildcareduringDefendant'svacation.Inherabsence,Plaintiffreliedonconstantchildcareprovidersandwasouteverynightatsocialevents.
7.Deniedthattheallegationscontainedinthisperson'saffidavitaretrueoraccurate.Allsuchallegationsarefabricated.This"witness"didnotevenstayintherentalhomewiththeDefendantmorethanonenightofthatweek.Rather,shestayedinaguestfacilityadjacenttotheproperty.Further,PlaintiffadmittedtoDefendantthatthiswitness'stestimonyhadbeenpurchasedforthepriceofadesignerhandbag,whichisconsistentwithPlaintiff'spatternofbullying,intimidation,andinfluencepeddling.8.NeitheradmitnordenytheallegationscontainedinthisparagraphasDefendantwasnolongeratPlaintiffsMiamiBeachrentalforanysuchparty,havingreturnedhomeaweekearlier.Plaintiffhadknowledgethatcertainindividualshadremainedonthepremisesandhemadenoefforttosecurethepropertyfromsuchtrespassers.AsforPlaintiffsallegationsregardingdruguseanddistribution,sexualencounters,andcriminalinvestigations,DefendanthasnoknowledgeoftheseallegedactivitiesasshewasalreadygonefromPlaintiffsrentalbythetimesuchactivitiesallegedlytookplace.Toherknowledge,DefendantisnotcurrentlyunderanycriminalinvestigationfortheeventsPlaintiffallegesinthisparagraph.9.NeitheradmitnordenywhatPlaintiffdidorthought,butDefendantdeniestheallegationsasuntrue.Defendanthasbeenlivingintheguestroomoftheparties'maritalhomeandhasnoideahowPlaintiffwitnessedherbrushingherhair.Further,DefendantdeniesanyuseofcocainesoanyresultsshowingcocaineusewouldindicatethatPlaintiffactuallyhadsomeoneelse'shairtested.ThestressassociatedwithhermarriagetoPlaintiffandthisdivorceiscausingDefendant'shairtofallout.Consequently,shehasfrequentlyusedclip-inhairpiecesmadefromrealhumanhair.PlaintiffwouldbeunabletoknowthedifferencebetweenthesepiecesandDefendant'sownhairandthelabtestingthesamplewouldnotknowwhetherthishairwashersorfromtheclip-inssheuses.Plaintiff,anadversepartywhoallegedlytookthissample,
(00414795.DOC)
3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Michael J. Malik vs. Brooke A. Malik - Response to Motion to Compel Substance Abuse Testing
in Malik vs. Malik, a divorce case involving Detroit casino syndicator Michael J. Malik, Sr. and Brooke A. Malik (nee Garwood), she tells the court he has a history of bullying, intimidation and influence peddling.
1.1K
Reads
0
Readcasts
11
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
