ࡱ> Root Entry FSL CompObjnWordDocumentB0ObjectPool˖ ˖  6;<=SummaryInformation(  FMicrosoft Word 6.0 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.69q_Oh+'0 D h   @d (C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\TEMPLATE\NORMAL.DOT9Petitioners Affidavit <<<<<<<,,,,,,,,,,,..............Photius CoutsoukisPhotius Coutsoukis@؜@^C @@ L h@@)Microsoft Word 6.0 27......... In the Matter of a Proceeding Under Article six of the Family Court Act File # #53516 PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS, ܥe= DeuB0""&&&&&(J&(((( ((9/E((" ) ) ).).).)++++"+,V-~/T/pt-&.) ).).).)t-.)&& )(.).).).)& )& )+&(&"&&&&.)+.)d.)FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ............................................................................ In the Matter of a Proceeding Under Article six of the Family Court Act File # #53516 PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS, Petitioner, - against - PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION SUSAN SAMORA, TO RE-ARGUE Respondent _______________________________nyaffi11.doc I, PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS, being first duly sworn, depose and state: 1. The following error in fact was made by the Court during the preliminary proceeding that was held on October 29th, 1998, in connection with my petition seeking modification of the Oregon divorce decree on the subjects of custody and visitation. 2. The Judge stated that the Oregon Court twice heard my petition for modification and that the same arguments were presented there. 3. Following are the facts, as supported by the Oregon record, which is hereto appended in its entirety, together with relevant documents, such as sworn depositions, affidavits and letters from and to Judge G. Philip Arnold. 4. The first time that I submitted an affidavit with documentation about my daughters deteriorated condition was as part of my Motion for a New Trial and/or Reconsideration, which was filed with the Oregon Court, which the Judge dismissed (Exhibit A, transcript of May 4th, 1998) because, in his opinion, this is all evidence of things that have happened after the trial (p. 3, l. 25), [actually Judge Arnold used the date of a custody hearing] of August 7, 1997 (p.9, l. 14). In denying the motion for new trial, the Judge said (brackets are mine): I find that all the evidence that you-- you claim comes under the category of newly discovered evidence, that that evidence was n-- was available to you at the time of trial [October 7th, 1997] and that-- and that therefore it does not meet the standards of newly discovered evidence under Rule 64.(p .12, l. 25 through p. 13, l. 4). 5. This decision, quite obviously, did not constitute a hearing , as erroneously claimed by this Court. 6 The next time I brought this and other similar evidence before the Oregon Court was in a Motion to Show Cause - Modification (Exhibit B, Affidavit in Support). 7. Upon receipt of the motion, the Judge wrote a letter, whereby he, in effect, invited the other side to file a request to dismiss my motion on jurisdictional grounds (Exhibit C, letter from Judge Arnold, dated June 4th, 1998). 8. I sent a reply to the Judge, noting the New York Courts refusal to hear my case. (Exhibit D, my letter to Judge Arnold, dated June 12th, 1998) 8. Naturally, the other side immediately filed a motion to dismiss mine on jurisdictional grounds and I sent a response (Exhibit E) and a Supplemental Affidavit in Response to Petitioners Motion to Decline Jurisdiction and Dismiss the Modification Proceeding (Exhibit E2). 9. The Oregon Judge then issued an Order Pursuant to UCCJA, whereby he declined to hear my motion, on jurisdictional grounds, but also stated that the scheduled hearing would remain in the calendar, to be held if the New York Court declined a petition to move the case to New York (Exhibit F, Oregon Order Pursuant to UCCJA). Respondent raises serious issues in that motion and the courts of Oregon will not leave those issues undetermined, if the court in New York declines jurisdiction.(p.3 of the order, Exhibit F) Petitioner [the other side] is hereby instructed to file, as soon as possible, a motion in New York seeking to have the courts of that state assume jurisdiction of this case, including the modification motion currently filed in this court. If Petitioner does not file such a motion, or if the courts of New York decline jurisdiction, I will reconsider this order. (p.3 of the order, Exhibit F) I have not communicated with the family court of New York prior to entering this order. (p.3 of the order, Exhibit F) [This is also significant, because on two separate occasions, prior to the date of this Oregon order, Judge Braslow said, on the record, that she spoke with Judge Arnold.] 10. I filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order Pursuant to UCCJA (Exhibit G). 11. I also filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of Order Pursuant to UCCJA (Exhibit H) 12. Even though the New York court dismissed the other sides motion, the other side asked the Oregon Court to dismiss or postpone the hearing, to which I produced a Response to Petitioners Motion to Dismiss or Postpone Motion to Show Cause and Contempt Proceeding (my violation petition) (Exhibit I). 13. In spite of all this, the Oregon Court breached his promise and issued an Order Declining Jurisdiction(Exhibit J). 14. During a preliminary proceeding in New York Family Court, on my petition for modification, on May 29th, 1998, the judge stated that In fact, there were two proceedings in Oregon. One was a custody proceeding and the other was a divorce action. In the context of both of those actions, every argument that you are making before me today could and should have been made in those time.(Exhibit K) .This is at a hearing that took place before any appeals were filed in Oregon and the Oregon Court record shows that it is an erroneous statement. Although there was a trial date set for February, 1998, custody and visitation was decided at a hearing in September and October 1997 (it required two days). None of the issues I raised could have been brought to the court at that time. The February date was limited to finalizing the order regarding custody and visitation and no other issues were allowed. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that this motion be granted, that the Court grant leave to reargue the order to show cause seeking modification of the divorce decree, and, upon reargument, change custody of the parties infant daughter to Petitioner, or, in the alternative, increase Petitioners visitation. _____________________________ PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me _______________, 1997 ____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR NEW YORK My commission expires: PAGE  PAGE 3  00&( 3Exhibit A, 1OTION SUSAN SAMORA, TO REat a hearing to hear&<=}   P hijDONYSUZ[\bcdfgmnopqtu"""""$#%#(#3#5#6#7#<#=#>#r#uP uDP]cUU^cUcc e uDacT&<1Fd'("#  r s   ,+DEjk QRSTU)D[defqrstu!*!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!e!!h`%*K@Normala "A@"Default Paragraph Font @ Footer !)@ Page Numberwith the Oregon Court with the Oregon Court to assume jurisdictionalso failed to reconsider its order, as it stated it would,serethe hearing 3case 3 00&(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!4#5#6#=#!! >#!   i&<1Fd&'!" , -   DEjkKL4 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!x!!