FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS INDEX NO.

F-28901-08/10A/B/C ELENA SVENSON, Petitioner, -againstMICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Respondent. OBJECTION Judge Paula Hepner
Oral argument is requested

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 142040 File #: Docket #: F-28901-08/1013
ORDER ENTRY MONEY JUDGMENT

In the Matter of a Support Proceeding
Elena Svenson, DOB: 3/24/1958,

2620 Ocean Parkway, Apt. 3K Brooklyn, NY 11235, 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 ofnonpayment 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

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
fHS IS TO CERTIFY THAT -THIS IS A

ENTER
) /
.

WITHIN THE Ci re COUNTY OF YfNGS. *

(I.Jt rF1UE COPY OF MADE IN THE WATTERDESIGNATED IN SUCH COPY AND SHOWN BY THE RECORDS OF THE FMILY COURT OF THE F NEW Y0R

\

I

-W 44olvopT
CFCouR/

oh M. Fasone, Support Magistrate

-.

Ch9 ~I(applicable box:

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

IL( IL ( P

c (a

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
PRESENT:

John M. Fasone, Support Magistrate 142040 File #: Docket #: F-28901-08/10A
CSMS #: NV05003T1

In the Matter of a Support Proceeding
Michael Krichevsky, SSN: XXX-XX-7 181,

Petitioner, - against 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. 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 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

'

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

licabIe box:

..(

.. (

S

4

F.C.A. § §1 413, 416, 439(e)

4-SM-3 8/2010

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

In the Matter of a Support Proceeding
Michael Krichevsky,

File #: 142040 Docket #: F-28901-08/1OA&B CSMS #: NV05003T1 FINDINGS OF FACT -

Petitioner, - against
Elena Svenson, -

-

-Respondent.

John M. Fasone, being the Support Magistrate before whom the issues of support in the aboveentitled 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 David Svenson Date of Birth 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

PRESENT:

John M. Fasone, Support Magistrate

In the Matter of a Support Proceeding

File #: 142040 Docket #: F-28901-08/10A CSMS #: NV05003T1 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Michael Krichevsky,
Petitioner, - against -

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
Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more

Page 1 of 4

My Citations I Scholar Preferences I Sign in

Go. gEe scholar
In the Matter of Bernadette L. Powers, Appelle Read this case How cited

r Search:j

Advanced Scholar Search

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 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

66

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
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 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 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.

Page 2 of 4

67

68

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
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.

Page 3 of 4

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 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

69

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

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
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 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.

Page 4 of 4

71

Go to Google Home - About Google - About Google Scholar
©2011 Google

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

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS 2
-

COPY
DOCKET NO. F-28901-08

-- ----x
Petitioner,

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ELENA SVENSON,

- against MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,

-------- - -- - - - ------x
330 Jay Street Brooklyn, New. York 11201 June 1, 2011 B E F 0 R E : JOHN FASONE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE

Respondent.

13 14 APPEARANCES: 15 16 17 18 TRANSCRIBER: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ELENA SVENSON Petitioner Pro Se MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY Respondent. Pro Se

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

Proceedings 1 2 3 4 VOICE: This is number 21 and 22 on the calendar, in the-matter of Krichevsky. Parties, raise your right hand. E L E N A S V E N S 0 N, was duly sworn and testified as follows: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 security. MR. KRICHEVSKY: Michael Krichevsky by special visitation as belligerent claimant. This Court has no jurisdiction. VOICE: Have a seat. THE COURT: I need an address and a social security number, sir. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'm not going to give you my social security number. I'm by special visitation here. THE COURT: Sir, you don't think we have it already. I just want -MR. KRICHEVSKY: Then, don't ask me, please. THE COURT: -- make sure that it's correct. MR. KRICHEVSKY: Then, don't ask me.
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

3

VOICE: Ma'am, in a loud, clear voice, your name, your complete address, and social security number, please. MS. SVENSON: Elena Svenson, Ocean Parkway, 3K, Brooklyn, New York 11235. VOICE: Sir, your name, your address, and social -.,- 2620

Proceedings 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 THE COURT: We ask everybody. Can you just rate for once, sir, and be polite.-_ MR. KRICHEVSKY: You know what, when I enter this torture chamber, I cannot. You know, 1 1 m shaking. THE COURT: I am struggling to be polite with you, can you do me the same courtesy. I need your name, address and social. MR. KRICHEVSKY: You know what, I didn't invite you to my home, okay. I'm forced to come here. THE COURT: And I didn't invite you here, sir, quite honestly. MR. KRICHEVSKY: So, no, I'm forced to come here under barrel of the gun. So, -THE COURT: Yes, sir, that's what a Court proceeding is all about. Sir, -MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes. THE COURT: -- I need address and a social security nurrtber. MR. KRICHEVSKY: You have it, write it. I'm not going to say it. THE COURT: Sir, -MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'm not givingjdiction. THE COURT: -- I need an address and a social security number.
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

Proceedings 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 MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'm not giving you jurisdiction. THE COURT: You don't give me anything. MR. KRICHEVSKY: That's -THE COURT: All I need is your address and social security number. MR. KRICHEVSKY: You have it. THE COURT: Sir, if mail goes to the wrong address of if other information is wrong because you're not cooperating, and it comes back to injure you, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Please have a seat. All right. So, you did get my decision, though, on your oral application for quote/unquote, standby counsel; right? MR. KRICHEVSKY: I object. It's wrong. It's a double talk. THE COURT: I don't care if you agree or not. Did you get it? MR. KRICHEVSKY: I did. THE COURT: Thank you. Sir, let me ask you something. Do you really think that acting like a child is going to help you here today? You know what this is about. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I know what is this -Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

5

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 PRESENT: John M. Fasone, Support Magistrate 142040 File #: Docket #: F-28901-08/10B CSMS #: NV05003T1
~ 91

In the Matter of a Support Proceeding Elena Svenson, SSN: XXX-XX-8546, Petitioner, against
-

Michael Krichevsky, SSN: XXX-XX Respondent.

JheeáJ

jr

N Tb OBEY /fHIS ORDER MALJ K L NOTICE: QJJR W{LL1JLEIL 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 ec-2Q oc0 '€ iP-'REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY LIENS. Wiw ) 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. 131 S.Ct. 504 (2010) 142, 691 S.B.2d 470 (2010), cert. granted U.S.
, ,

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 A.D.3d - or, to retain counsel of his own choosing. See, Matter of Tumminello v. Tumminello, 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: It's going to go on whether you cooperate or not. So, why don't you just act like an adult? MR. KRICHEVSKY: You know, I'm acting -THE COURT: I asked you a simple question. MR. KRICHEVSKY: --jn a belligerent. THE COURT: Sir, I'm not yelling at you. I'm not berating you. I'm not demeaning you. I asked you a simple question. Can you do me the courtesy of just answering me like an adult in a polite, courtesy manner? Can we operate on that premise? MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'll try. THE COURT: Would it hurt you to do that? MR. KRICHEVSKY: Actually, it does. THE COURT: It does. Acting like an adult and a courtesy human being hurts you. MR. KRICHEVSKY: No, acting courteously does. THE COURT: All right. Ma'am, did you get the decision? MS. SVENSON: I'm asking for -- to postpone this date because I'm in process to sign retainer. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I object. MS. SVENSON: I need more time. THE COURT: Stop. Process a what? You want to hire an attorney?
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 MS. SVENSON: To looking -- yes, to looking -THE COURT: Youtold me that last time. MS. SVENSON: No. Last time I just decided. •changed my mind to sign and looking for a lawyer -attorney. THE COURT: Well, actually, my note says that you have found -8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. SVENSON: I didn't last time. I said that - you advised me, actually, to looking for attorney. THE COURT: As something her attorney. I can't quite make it out. MS. SVENSON: And I had just six weeks, and two weeks it was Jewish holiday, and people were leaving for holiday, Jewish holiday, kids holiday. So, I had like four weeks only. I need more time. THE COURT: All right. So, were you going to accept assignment of counsel to represent you today? MS. SVENSON: Yes. THE COURT: That's for you, sir. MR. KRICHEVSKY: For me? THE COURT: Yes. You read my decision. MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes. THE COURT: Were you going to accept assignment of counsel? MR. KRICHEVSKY: No.
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

7

Proceedings 1 THE COURT: No. You're going to -MR. KRICHEVSKY: Standby counsel -- standby. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.SqTHE 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

8

Proceedings 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 THE COURT: Sir, -MR. KRICHEVSKY: --convict me. I know that. THE COURT: -- the Court of Appeals decision -MR. KRICHEVSKY: I read laws. THE COURT: -- Powers versus Powers, and decided if you owe arrears and if your violation
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484
iB

criminal conduct. THE COURT: Who said that? MR. KRICHEVSKY: Statute. THE COURT: What statute? MR. RRICI-iEVSKY: Judge said it. What statute? THE COURT:

Yes, what statute?

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Right now, you know, I didn't bring, but le me tell you something, this is what Judge says. THE COURT: This is not a criminal proceeding. I have no criminal jurisdiction. MR. KRICHEVSKY: That's right. That's and you try to shovel criminal jurisdiction over me. You want to tell me that this is civil proceedings -THE COURT: It is. MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- -and in your mind, you're going to conduct criminal, and then you're going to convert it into criminal proceedings, and you're going to

been

J 44/J
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

/

1r

0

___' + ')/ -j'2- '~~ a" e "
~

I

£

roceedings

&/ peora! L/'1
O,
mine that

willful, an d if you're deemed w±llful,

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: THE COURT:
---

you're telling to me.

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
nigh t, okay,

MR. KRICHEVSKY:

--

and somehow, it doesn't

work. It seems to be I'm an idiot, okay. Twenty_years, I
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service
(718) 667-9484

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 PRESENT: John M. Fasone, Support Magistrate In the Matter of a Support Proceeding Michael Krichevsky, Petitioner,
-

File #: 142040 Docket #: F-28901-08/10C CSMS #: NV05003T1
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

against

-

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. 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: August 5, 2010
~

ENTER

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

FWE COPY OF

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

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

Tn the Matter of a Support Proceeding Michaei Krichevsky, Petitioner, against Elena Svenson, Respondent.

142040 Docket #: F-28901-08/10C File #: CSMS #: NV05003T1
FINDINGS OF FACT

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. Mi ei Kri h

n2 submitted oo4

income, expenses, or support

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.

Ic
Dated: August 12, 2010

fohn M Fasone
Support Magistrate

Proceedings 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 use -THE COURT: Why is it unconstitutional? MR. KRICHEVSKY: Because --..•. .• with -if I threaten if my life liberty is threatened and property threatened,
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

11

was okay. I was making money. Now, I came to this Court, and l became an idiot. I cannot read the law. I_ can n o t ._ understand the law. Everythinn
T NTrit -is

gibberish.

THE COURT: I didn't say -MR. KRICHEVSKY: Supreme Court Judge is -- you know, -THE COURT: All right, look -MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- read my writing. THE COURT: -- stop, stop. Sir, -MR. KRICHEVSKY: They don't call it gibberish. THE COURT: -- sir, you have a pen in your hand, write this down. Family Court Act, Section 545 -- 454, I'm sorry, 455, 456. That all deals with non-criminal violation of Family Court Orders of Support. MR. KRICHEVSKY: Okay, I read this, and let me tell you -THE COURT: So, -MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- let me tell you, it's unconstitutional because -THE COURT: It is? MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes, it is not. That's why I

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

12 and there

okay, I need to have a lawyer. You cannot has to be jury to convict me. THE COURT:. No. MR. KRICHEVSKY: That's what --

THE COURT: How many times, sir, have I offered you a free attorney and you've denied it. MR. KRICHEVSKY: going to play your game. THE COURT: All right, there we go. MR. KRICHEVSKY: Let me ask you something. brought some really serious documents -THE COURT: I'm sure you did, but -MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- in this Court. THE COURT: -- you're not giving me a chance, sir, to look at them because we haven't had a hearing yet y're all corrupted. yLre

MR. KRICHEVSKY: That's why I don't -THE COURT: -- because we can't seem to get past this issue of an attorney. Now, sir, can I just tell you something. How much longer do you want them to take half of your unemployment check towards payment of what you owe? MR. KRICHEVSKY: How much -- how much what? THE COURT: How longer do you want this to go

Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
PAIRI

13

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I don't want it to go on. I want you to leave me alone. THE COURT: Then why won't you let me have a hearing on your petition for modification? j MR. KRICHEVSKY: Because I don't trust you. You jnying, okyThat's the poj. THE COURT: Until I have a hearing, sir, I can't change anything. MR. KRICHEVSKY: So, why did you stay it? THE COURT: I didn't stay anything. What are you talking about? MR. KRICHEVSKY: No. Last year, I filed -- I filed petition for modification. You adjourned it for five months, okay. THE COURT: I dismissed it MR. KRICHEVSKY: You protected her. THE COURT: I dismissed it MR. KRICHEVSKY: What did you -THE COURT: And then -- I don't know. MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- you dismissed my modification. THE COURT: But, sir, right now, they're talking your unemployment check. MR. KRICHEVSKY: They're taking more. THE COURT: Don't you want to tell me about
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

25

Proceedings 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 that? MR. KRICHEVSKY: They're leaving $150.00 per week, oka. THE COURT: But do you want that to continue? MR. KRICHEVSKY: What are you torturing me? THE COURT: No, sir, I'm wondering why -MR. KRICHEVSKY: You're asking me? THE COURT: -- it is that you won't let me have a hearing on your petition for modification. MR. KRICHEVSKY: Because I don't trust you because as soon as a hearing starts, okay you're going double talk, you're going to tell me I was not credible, you're going to tell me I did not convince you, okay., This document is not going to get -THE COURT: I didn't say you were going to win. MR. KRICHEVSKY: So, anything I will do, I'm going to lose, I know it. THE COURT: You know that. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I tried to recuse you, you will not go away. THE COURT: You had a vision of some sort? You saw yourself losing? MR. KRICHEVSKY: It's a track-- it's a pattern.. THE COURT: No, it's not a pattern. MR. KRICHEVSKY: You have a track record, okay.
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (71 R' 7-9424

14

I

Proceedings THE COURT: Because, sir, if I have a hearing, 2 3 maybe I'll agree that unemployment is your income right -• 0

15

c

p-4(

to
gambling. 6 7 8 9 10 11
OVA

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

THE COURT:

-- ,and maybe I'll modify it, --

MR. KRICHEVSKY: Maybe you gree. THE COURT: - but you're not letting me get to that issue, are you? Every time I adjourn this case because you act up in Court, it's just that much longer they take this money out of your check, but you want this to continue? MR. KRICHEVSKY: No, I don't, and you know it. THE COURT: So, when are we going to have a hearing on this? MR. KRICHEVSKY: When -- -first of all, this hearing must be dismissed because it's going on for more than sixty days. Now, Comrade Svenson, do you have certified copy of the child support? THE COURT: Sir, hey, wait, wait, wait. VOICE: Sir, speak to the Magistrate. THE COURT: You don't get away with that in my courtroom. MR. KRICHSVSKY: With what?
Angie DePoinpo Court Reporting Service
(71R) 7-944

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 II 24 25

Proceedings .
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

16

THE COURT: Number one, you don't address the other party. Number one, you don't demean her by calling her comrade. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I do not -- because -THE COURT: Because why, -MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- that's how I call her. THE COURT: -- she's a communist? MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes. She came from Russia.
.-.-.-,-------.

THE COURT: Well, you establish that first, sir, and then we :an get to her political affiliations, but will you for once act like an adult. MR. KRICHEVSKY: Okay. THE COURT: Instead of a baby. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'm not a baby. THE COURT: You're acting like one. But you don't want to have a hearing on your petition today; is that what I'm hearing? MR. KRICHEVSKY: On what petition, on modification? THE COURT: Yes. MR. KRICHEVSKY: You made determination that -THE COURT: I didn't make any determination. We haven't had a hearing yet. MR. KRICHEVSKY: Then, let me ask you, the order that you wrote, you said that in Findings of Fact, you /
Angie Depompo Court Reporting Service (71R 7-9424
,

Proceedings 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 petiear know that I am making $450.00 a week. That's whyu wrote. So, you -- obviously, you got -- you got

17

THE COURT: I haven't made any findings yet. We haven't had a hearing. MR. KRICHEVSKY: No, the order about counsel, and -- see, that's what I call double talk because when it's convenient, you want to have a hearing on my income, when you know my income. you know my incpwhy dyi a? even _I asked for theount_ -

THE COURT: Sir, I found that you weren't indigent because your gross benefit is $405.00. That's not double talk. MR. KRICHEVSKY: No. A year ago -THE COURT: And you're alleged to own other property or assets. Thatcame up in the prior hearing MR. KRICJ-iEVSKY: So, on -- so f you basically ruled on allegations. THE COURT: No. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I thought that allegations -THE COURT: I'm saying that, strictly speaking, you're not entitled to free counsel, but because I really can't get a straight answer out of you, I'm still willing to assign one to you, maybe you have to pay the state back for that, but I can't get a straight answer out of you on
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

Proceedings 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 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

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

Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ma ' am. MS. SVENSON: Not today. THE COURT: And the holidays were over at the end of April. MS. SVENSON: Well, I had -- that's four weeks, what I'm talking about. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I have a box like this (indicating), -THE COURT: Sir. MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- and itTs there, but I can tell you -THE COURT: Read me the quote. MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- I can tell your reply was -what did it show was Temporary Restraining Order. It was done in August of 2010. Here I say that I am making $450.00, and I'm
Angie DePoinpo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

19

THE COURT: Stop it. What is it? MS. SVENSON: I didn't have enough time to find attorney. THE COURT: Since April? MS. SVENSON: Yes, because starting from April 15th, was Jewish holiday. Attorney what I looking for, they were not available. I need more time. I had just four weeks. THE COURT: Well, today is not a Jewish holiday,

24 II
25 II

Proceedings 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 even telling you that -THE COURT: $405.00. MR. KRICHEVSKY -- the Court order must be

20

modified to $300 -- $315.19, okay. That -- I'm telling you even, okay. I'm giving you math. THE COURT: Sir, you were going to quote me some prejudicial remark I made in my -- in my finding. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I didn't bring it with me because I have this big box of litigation papers. THE COURT: And because it doesn't exist -MR. KRICHEVSKY: It exists. If you -THE COURT: -- except in your imagination. MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- if you give me this jacket, I'll find it there. I couldn't bring it THE COURT: I don't have time for that, sir. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I knew that. So, I knew I' not going to get any courtesy. That's why -- you know, that's why I'm not po THE COURT: Right, because you need an excuse. MR. KRICHEVSKY: Where is -- where is the order on this Order to Show Cause? Look it up, please. I filed this order -THE COURT: Sir, I denied to sign it because everything that you're alleging in there is really better considered on your appeal.
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service
1"71 ON

7...QiII

Proceedings 1
2 CI 4 5 6 7 8

21

MR. KRICHEVSKY: But what happened, yp_ conducted hearing without me present or without petitioner present, and this order you wrote that I didn't submit anything, and that's why it's denied. THE COURT: Have a seat, please, sir. Answer -- answer me one question straight out, sir. MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes. THE COURT: Do you own property? MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes, I do. Actually, I'm not. Bank owns it. I owe mortgage. THE COURT: Are there properties in your name. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I owe more than million dollars. I owe more than million dollars, and it's all in the pleadings. THE COURT: How many properties are in your name? MR. KRICHEVSKY: Two. THE COURT: Do you collect rents from any of those properties? MR. KRICHEVSKY: No. THE COURT: Have you ever? I MR. KRICHEVSKY: Actually, -- actually, the re is a -- there is a litigation going on regarding collection of the rent, and courtesy of the petitioner on this -- on
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service
(71\ 7-OA2A

9 10

II
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Proceedings 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 II out joint property, there is litigation going on in the Supreme Court. THE COURT: Ms. Svenson is asking the Court to divide the properties between yourselves. MR. KRICHEVSKY: No, it's another one. THE COURT: My question is -MR. KRICHEVSKY: It's another one. THE COURT: What other one?

22

MR. KRICHEVSKY: The property is in foreclosure, and we are not paying maintenance, and I appear in the action. Actually, I am in six actions, okay. There is -there is foreclosure proceedings against Seagate, okay, and I'm sure she knows it, you know it, her lawyer knows it, I submitted documents, I submitted pleadings. Everything is submitted, and you choose to ignore it, and that's why I think this Court is corrupt. THE COURT: There are two properties that are in foreclosure? MR.. KRICHEVSKY: Yes. THE COURT: Have you ever received rents from tenants in any of those properties? MR. KRICHEVSKY: No. THE COURT: Never, ever? MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes. I had tenant who was tenant for two months.
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service
AOA

Proceedings 1 THE COURT: When? How long ago? MR. KRICHEVSKY: Last year. I don't remember 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with you? MR. KRICHEVSKY: Right now, I don't have it with me. Like I said, I have -- I have probably fifty pounds plastic bucket -THE COURT: Yes, but, sir, exactly date. THE COURT: Did you ever show me your 2010 tax return -- 2010, your tax return? MR. KRICHEVSKY: I believe I did, $56,000.00. THE COURT: I think that was the W-2. I didn't -- I didn't believe it. Did you ever file taxes, though, with the IRS? MR. KRICHEVSKY: I did. Yes, I did. THE COURT: Do you have the filed tax return

23

MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- from Home Depot -THE COURT: if you want to help yourself in

this courtroom, your tax return doesn't weigh fifty pounds, you might be' -- it might be worthwhile to bring it. MR. KRICHEVSKY: No. The default case is fifty pounds. I don't know what I might need. THE COURT: How about we start with the essentials. Your tax return -Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

Proceedings 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 MR. KRICHEVSKY: I don't know what you know. I don't know what you're going--t-"o. THE COURT: What the statute requires, sir. MR. KRICHEVSKY: You're unpredictable. THE COURT: Tax returns, pay stubs, if working, financial disclosure booklet. MR. KRICHEVSKY: Sir, you're unrecLctabl. I cannot predict what you're going tTHE COURT: I'm not unpredictable, sir. MR. KRICHEVSKY: -- and I'm -THE COURT: Quite honestly, I'm very predictable. I do the same thing in every case. Ma'am, MS. SVENSON: Yes. THE COURT: -- do you know if he has tenants in any of these properties? MS. SVENSON: Yes. THE COURT: How many? MR. KRICHEVSKY: I object. THE COURT: Stop. How many? MS. SVENSON: How many? THE COURT: Yes. MS. SVENSON: I don't know how many, but I know that he had tenant. THE COURT: Why do you know he -- no, does he
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service
(718) 667-9484

24

Proceedings 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 not you. Last time, I couldn't hear. MS. SVENSON: It's not foreclosure.
Angie DePoxnpo Court Reporting Service (718 ) 667-9484

25

have tenants, not that he had tenants? Does he have tenants now? He says both properties are in foreclosure. MS. SVENSON: Atlantic -- on Atlantic Avenue, it's not foreclosure. Some -MR. KRICHEVSKY: It's a lie? MS. SVENSON: It's not foreclosure. THE COURT: Stop interrupting, sir. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I'm not interrupting, I'm objecting on time. MS. SVENSON: (Inaudible) two families --

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

THE COURT: Then say, objection. MR. KRICHEVSKY: That's what I said. THE COURT: Not, it's a lie. That's not an objection. MS. SVENSON: It's two-family house, worth over a million dollars -MR. KRICHEVSKY: She's lying -THE COURT: Sir, would you stop that. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I object. THE COURT: I make decisions as to credibility,

Proceedings 1 2
3

26

THE COURT: What's that? MS. SVENSON: It's not foreclosure on Atlantic Avenue. THE COURT: But is there a tenant there? MS. SVENSON: Yes. THE COURT: How do you know? MS. SVENSON: Mutual friend. THE COURT: How do you know? Have you seen a tenant? Have you collected rents from a tenant? Have you seen -MS. SVENSON: No, no, I didn't. THE COURT: tenant? MS. SVENSON: No. THE COURT: Did he tell you he receives rent from a tenant? MS. SVENSON: No. THE COURT: No. What about the other property? MS. SVENSON: Oceana (phonetic), yes, it's foreclosure. THE COURT: Are there tenants in the property? MS. SVENSON: There were, not now. THE COURT: Not now. All right. I have to take some action, ma'am, on the gentleman's petition for modification. It's so far over
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13

Mr. Krichevsky collect rent from a

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I

Proceedings 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 workplace? MS. SVENSON: No, but my previous attorney, he's hired private investigator working. standards and goals it's not even close to being funny

27

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

azo

r"4

on your unemployment benefit. MS. SVENSON: Your Honor, I know that he's still

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
--

p,.,k-

19 ' THE COURT: Yes, and?

" (-q"-3 V , - , r
t --

q be,

~-p

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
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

Proceedings 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
(

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. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I object. 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

Proceedings

29

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

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> you kee Eit. - ( c
i

-e

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

Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 next time. THE COURT: Good question. Normally, my adjournments are running into October, but I have to decide these matters a lot sooner than that.

30

Well, let me ask you this, ma'am. How much more time do you need? MS. SVENSON: Not less than two months. THE COURT: Not less than two. You got to do less than two. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I object to adjournm_he Court rules say no more than one adjournment to get an attorney, and since I started reading Family Court rules you do not follow Family Court rules. The contempt proceedings must be done within sixty days, and if there isan adjournment, no more than

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 II

seventy days -- seven -- seven days for adjournment. THE COURT: I'm familiar with those regulations. MR. KRICHEVSKY: So, you do not follow theim. THE COURT: Mostly because of your interruptions, but -MR. KRICHEVSKY: No. You -- you adjourned case from November 18th to March 16th. This is not seven days. THE COURT: (Inaudible) period of some point, I'm sure, but can you let me do what I need to do today? You might find the information useful.
Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 THE COURT: (Inaudible) 2:30. dismissed. THE COURT: Sir, you didn't think I was MR. KRICHEVSKY: So, that's the problem. No

31

matter what I do, you don't care. Okay, I'm not following my rules, so what. THE COURT: I didn't say that, so stop putting words in my mouth. Wednesday, July 6th, in the afternoon, 2:30. VOICE: What time? THE COURT: 2:30. VOICE: 2:30.

THE COURT: Marked absolutely final. VOICE: July what, Magistrate? THE COURT: 7/6. That's as much time as you have, ma'am. It's gone on way too long. MR. KRICHEVSKY: I object. It must b_

listening before when you said that three times? I heard. MR. KRICHEVSKY: Yes. I read in the rules that

MR. KRICHEVSKY: I read in the rules when yu object, you renew your objection. Now, what happened today? I don't understand what happened today. VOICE: Parties are excused. Step out.
Angie DePoinpo Court Reporting Service (718 ) 667-9484

WAI
23 24 25 II

32

1 2 3
4

VOICE: Step out, please. VOICE: Step out of the courtroom. MR. KRICHEVSKY: The hearing is a joke.

5
6 7

* * * * *

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Angie DePoinpo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
/7

* * * * * *

I, Dorothy Florentino, certify that the foregoing transcript of proceedings in the Family Court, Kings County, of Elena Svenson v. Michael Krichevsky, Index No. F-28901-08, was prepared using the required transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of the proceedings.

14 15 16 17 18 19 Date: July 2, 2011 20 21 22 23 24 25
Angie. Depompo Court Reporting Service (718) 667-9484

Dorothy Flrentino Agency Name: ANGIE DePOMPO COURT REPORTING SERVICE 86 Kensico Street Staten Island, New York 10306

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

PRESENT: John M. Fasone, Support Magistrate Ln the Matter of a Support Proceeding Michael Krichevsky, SSN: - against ORDER ON MOTION #01

_L

File #: 142040 Docket #: F-28901-08/10B CSMS #: NV05003T1

Petitioner,

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. 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 13, 2010

ENTER
/

port Magistrate
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 2-

Lxf a-5

d-9-

o1J

f

r 4ce oV

'P