- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
          SUSAN SAMORA, 
           -against-                   Docket #O-972-98
          PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS,          FU #53516
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
          Richard J. Daronco Court House
          111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
          White Plains, New York  
          December 1, 1998
          B E F O R E :
           Family Court Judge
          A P P E A R A N C E S :
           Mark Domicello, Esq.
           Attorney for Petitioner
           Photius Coutsoukis
           Appearing Pro Se
           Robin Cotler, Esq.
           Law Guardian
                  Nora Secoyager, Esq.
           Assistant County Attorney
           Pam Rolston
           Senior Case Worker
                    SANDY SAUNDERS REPORTING
                   Bank of New York Building 
                Two New Hempstead Road, Suite 303
                    New City, New York 10956
                         (914) 634-7561
                         COURT CLERK:  Docket 0-972 of
           1998 in the matter of Samora against
                     Coutsoukis.  Appearances, please?
                         MS. SAMORA:  Susan Samora.
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  Mark
           Domicello, assigned counsel for Susan
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Photius 
           Coutsoukis, defendant.
                         MS. COTLER:  Robin Cotler, 
           Law Guardian. 
                         THE COURT:  Okay.
                         MS. SECOYAGER:  Nora
           Secoyager (phonetic), Assistant County
                     Attorney for the Department of Social
                         MS. ROLSTON:  Pam Rolston 
           (phonetic), senior case worker for 
                         THE COURT:  Okay, this case 
           is scheduled for a fact finding hearing
                     under Docket 0-972-98.  Mr. Domicello,
                     are you ready to proceed on this
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  I'm ready to 
           proceed on the petition, Your Honor.  I
                     have also filed an amended petition which
                     Ms. Cotler has accepted, I believe Mr.
                     Coutsoukis has accepted also, and we will
                     be requesting a continuance for that
                     petition.  However, on the initial
                     petition, we're ready to proceed today.
                         THE COURT:  Mr. Coutsoukis, 
           have you accepted service of the amended
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  I have 
           accepted service of the petition.
                         THE COURT:  Of the amended 
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Of the 
           amended petition, yes.  I was just handed
                     this, although it doesn't have a docket
                     number on it.
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  Well, we're 
           waiting for the X docket number, Your
                     Honor, which I filed with the Court.  
                         THE COURT:  Was this just 
           filed this morning?
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  Yes, Your 
           Honor.  Yes.
                         THE COURT:  All right, I'll 
           add that.  Any objection to adding that
                     to today's calendar.
                         MS. COTLER:  No, Your Honor. 
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Yes, I do. 
                         THE COURT:  You object? 
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  And I have a
           full explanation of why I object.  Your
                     Honor, before I speak about the other
                     side's request for adjournment, I would
                     like to mention that one of my 
                         THE COURT:  Excuse me.  
           Before you go further, they're not
                     requesting an adjournment.  They're
                     asking to proceed on the original Family
                     Offense petition, and they request a
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Right. 
                         THE COURT: --as to the
           allegations on the amended.
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  I apologize,
           Your Honor.  Mr. Domicello mentioned last
                     time we were here over a month ago that
                     he was filing additional charges for
                     Susan's request for an Order of
                     Protection.  He had plenty of time to do
                     so in a timely manner so that I could be
                     prepared to defend myself in today's
                     hearing, but did not do so, so I request
                     that any charges that he brings today or
                     new relief that he brings today be
                     dismissed.  These charges and other
                     activities from the other side are
                     nothing but delaying tactics to prolong
                     the temporary-- 
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  Objection, 
           Your Honor.  This is a--
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  --prolonging
           the temporary Order of Protection in
                     effect, making it--in effect, making it
                     permanent by delay as the petitioner, her
                     attorney and her so-called law guardian
                     did last year as well.  I would like to
                     submit into the record my affidavit dated
                     November 27, 1998, which is Exhibit "O,"
                     which partially explains how this
                     delaying tactic came about-- 
                         THE COURT:  No.  No, Mr. 
           Coutsoukis.  I'm not going to go into
                     what happened last year.  We haven't
                     started the hearing.
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  No, this is 
           about the request.
                         THE COURT:  There's not going
           to be an Exhibit "O" admitted into
                     evidence.  I haven't commenced a hearing. 
                     You've made a motion to dismiss the
                     amended petition.  Let me address myself
                     to that, all right?  Mr. Domicello?
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  Your Honor, 
           as far as the amended petition is
                     concerned, I do not believe that I'm
                     under any time constraints with regard to
                     filing an amended petition.  I requested
                     leave of this Court to file one, the
                     Court granted it.  Mr. Coutsoukis
                     accepted service, so did the law
                     guardian.  I'm not requesting an
                     adjournment of this matter, merely a
                     continuance as Your Honor stated before. 
                     The--I didn't want to have to file this
                     amended petition; however, the harassment
                     and the menacing against my client and
                     the parties' daughter has continued and
                     that's forced me to file this petition
                     today.  In addition, we're also
                     requesting a continuance cause there's
                     some records--I asked Your Honor to so-
                     order a subpoena with regard to telephone
                     records--that will show this harassment
                     has continued during the period between
                     the filing of the petition and the filing
                     of the amended petition.  So there are
                     new facts which we need to have testimony
                     evidence about. 
                         THE COURT:  All right, let me
           hear from the law guardian.
                         MS. COTLER:  Your Honor, I 
           have no objection to the continuance for
                     these new charges.
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Your Honor, 
           she said that last time. 
                         THE COURT:  Excuse me.  
           Excuse me.  As to the motion to dismiss?
                         MS. COTLER:  Your Honor, I 
           don't believe we should dismiss. 
                         THE COURT:  Motion to
           dismiss will be denied.
                                MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Last time we
           were here--
                         THE COURT:  You did accept 
           service of the amended petition.  The
                     amended petition will be added to today's
                     calendar and the Court--             
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Well, I 
           object to the violation of due process
                     and prejudicing my defense by having new
                     charges and new relief brought to me at
                     the last moment just outside the door of
                     the court without time to prepare.
                         THE COURT:  Okay. 
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS: 
           Additionally, Mr. Domicello mentioned
                     this, that he had additional charges over
                     a month ago in this courtroom.
                         THE COURT:  I heard you, Mr. 
           Coutsoukis.  You said that before.  Mr.
                     Domicello, are you asking the Court to
                     proceed on those petitions at this time?
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  No, Your 
           Honor, just the--just the one that is
                     scheduled for today.  Again, I am
                     requesting a continuance as to the
                     amended petition.
                         THE COURT:  Well, it seems to
           the Court that the criminal cases that
                     are in the original petition are also in
                     the amended petition--
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  Correct, Your
                         THE COURT:  --plus additional
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  Right.  With 
           regard to the additional allegations, I'm
                     requesting a continuance.  
                         THE COURT:  Okay. 
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  I will--to 
           offer Mr. Coutsoukis a time period to
                     prepare, to defend himself with regard to
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  You had a 
           month to do it.
                         THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  I'm 
           sorry.  Mr. Domicello, what is your
                     objection to withdrawing the original
                     petition and just proceeding on the
                     amended petition only on the allegations
                     that are in the original petition--excuse
                     me, on the amended petition itself?
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  I have no 
           objection to doing that, Your Honor.  I
                     would certainly do that. 
                         THE COURT:  All right, then 
           Docket 0-972-98 is going to be withdrawn
                     and this Court can proceed on only the
                     allegations that were in the original
                     petition that are presently in the
                     amended petition.
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  I still 
           object to that tactic, Your Honor.
                         THE COURT:  Well, what is the
           prejudice that will result to you as to
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  This is 
           their petition, Your Honor.  They were
                     given as much time to prepare, including
                     the additional allegations and relief
                     that Mr. Domicello mentioned over a month
                     ago.  They had as much time to prepare as
                     I did. 
                         THE COURT:  No. 
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Between the 
           petitioner and the two lawyers--
                         THE COURT:  No, Mr.
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  --there-- 
                         THE COURT:  No, I'm asking 
           you what is the prejudice that will occur
                     to you?  You've already said that, I
                     understand that you would like more time. 
                     However, the Court will grant a
                     continuance to give you more time.
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  But, you 
           see, I'll object to that because that
                     means I will have a temporary Order of
                     Protection extended yet again.  Last time
                     the two of them did it for months and
                     months.  I was convicted without a
                     hearing.  I suffered, my daughter
                     suffered, she was diminished.
                         THE COURT:  No, there is no
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Okay, there 
           are three of them. 
                         THE COURT:  --(inaudible) in 
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Well, if you
           let me I will read to you what I--I will
                     tell you exactly how I feel, if I may? 
                         THE COURT:  No, (inaudible) 
           will be unnecessary.
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  This is a 
           delaying tactic, Your Honor, and the
                     Order of Protection, the temporary Order
                     of Protection which is, in fact, a
                     criminalization of an innocent man and a
                     good father, is done for only that
                     purpose, for the purpose of pursuing
                         THE COURT:  Well, in other 
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  --for my 
           seriously damaged daughter.
                         THE COURT:  Well, Mr.
           Coutsoukis, in other words, you're
                     objecting to any further delay;
                     therefore, the Court will not delay it. 
                     The Court will proceed this morning, will
                     proceed on the allegations that are in
                     the original petition.  Mr. Domicello,
                     call your first witness.  Well, before
                     you do that, I have the County Attorney
                     in the courtroom and there is something
                     that you want to put on record?
                         MS. SECOYAGER:  Your Honor, 
           we're here because we were served with a
                     subpoena from the respondent.  It was
                     served upon Pam Rolston and Docket 0-972
                     of 1998.  You Honor, I would move to
                     quash for two reasons:  one, that Child
                     Protective Services did conduct an
                     investigation.  The result was unfounded,
                     therefore, the record is legally sealed
                     pursuant to 422 of Social Services Law. 
                     And also the petition in O-972-98 has
                     been withdrawn and, therefore, she cannot
                     testify either.
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  There's 
           another matter, though, Your Honor.
                         THE COURT:  Yes?
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  The reason I
           asked Ms. Rolston to come here is not
                     because of any of the investigation that
                     had to do with a matter that was reported
                     to them.  The reason I'm asking her to--I
                     asked her to come here is because in
                     regard to--with an Order of Protection,
                     Susan plotted to see that there was a
                     violation, or what appeared to be a
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  Objection, 
           Your Honor.  This is testimony.  It's
                     argumentative.  It's speculation. 
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  I'm
           explaining why Ms. Rolston is here.
                         THE COURT:  Well, let him 
           finish his thoughts.
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Okay, Ms. 
           Rolston came to my house at 5 p.m., which
                     is the designated time for exchange of my
                     daughter, where Susan was supposed to be
                     at my house at 5:00.  Ms. Rolston waited
                     for one hour, and then at 6:00 she left. 
                     That's when Susan, who came in somebody
                     else's car, not her own, in concealment,
                     came to pick up my daughter.  From there
                     she proceeded to go to the police
                     department where she has very close
                     family connections, filed a complaint
                     that I violated an order that said there
                     should be a third-party present during
                     the visitation.  At that point I was
                     dragged here in handcuffs in violation-- 
                         THE COURT:  Okay, Mr.
           Coutsoukis, what did--
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  That is why 
           she is here. 
                         THE COURT:  Mr. Coutsoukis--
           well, let me hear from the law guardian.
                         MS. COTLER:  Your Honor, I 
           don't know about this incident that Ms.
                     Rolston apparently was at, but I don't
                     see how that bears any relevance on the
                     petition at this point. 
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Because the 
           character of the petitioner--
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  I join in the
           application, Your Honor. 
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  --the fact 
           that she is a scheming, psychopathic,
                     dangerous individual who has put me-- 
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  Your Honor, 
           I'm going to object and ask that be
                     stricken from the record.
                         THE COURT:  All right--
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  I have 
                         THE COURT:  I'm going to let 
           that remain on the record.
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  And I have 
                         THE COURT:  But, however, you
           may have proof, but this Court here, Mr.
                     Coutsoukis, is dealing with a very
                     limited conviction.
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Correct. 
                         THE COURT:  And you can see 
           that it's--I'm sure you have this amongst
                     the many documents that you have in front
                     of you--you will see that it is outlined
                     in a number of paragraphs what the
                     petitioner is saying constitutes a family
                     offense.  The instrument that you're
                     referring to is not in this petition. 
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  But it is 
           about a pattern.  It is the fifth time
                     she has done it, and I have proof that
                     she has only done it to deprive me and my
                     daughter access to each other.  She has
                     caused serious damage to my daughter. 
                     She has done it through perjury.  There
                     is an investigation of perjury going on
                     in Oregon today. 
                         THE COURT:  All right, I-- 
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  And
           regarding the law guardian here, I also
                     would like to say something when you're
                         THE COURT:  Okay, I've heard 
           you give your reasons for wanting to call
                     this witness; however, the Court agrees
                     with the law guardian that there is
                     nothing relevant to the testimony that
                     you wish to have this witness offer to
                     this petition.  Therefore, the motion--
                     Mr. Domicello, anything you wanted to
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  I'm actually 
           joining in the application, Your Honor,
                     that the testimony would be irrelevant.
                         THE COURT:  The testimony, it
           appears to the Court, would be
                     irrelevant.  The motion to quash is
                     granted and, therefore, (inaudible). 
                         MS. SECOYAGER:  Thank you, 
           Your Honor.   
                         THE COURT:  All right, you 
           wanted to say something as to the law
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  I would like
           to submit for the record (inaudible) my
                     letter dated October 16, 1998, to
                     Attorney Cotler, the law guardian, and I
                     move that she be dismissed immediately
                     for the reasons explained in that letter.
                                THE COURT:  Well, rather than
                     have any letters admitted into evidence,
                     why don't you just tell me?  It will be
                     on the record.
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Okay, I will
           read it to you.
                         THE COURT:  No, why don't you
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  That's my 
           reason, whereas from the time--
                         THE COURT:  Well, why don't 
           you just--
                         MR. COUTSOUKIS:  Okay. 
                         THE COURT:  --tell me in your
           own words, but--

Robin Cotler on the Web

MR. COUTSOUKIS: From the time she was appointed to be the law guardian, she initiated and maintained close contact with Mr. Domicello, Susan's New York court-appointed attorney, Christina Sanz, her Oregon attorney, and a number of witnesses unfriendly to me, such as Ms. Barbara Kozol, who committed perjury, proof of which I subsequently submitted to the law guardian, she avoided contact with me and my then attorney, Jan Zager.

And, by the way, Barbara Kozol is in the midst of an investigation of perjury in southern Oregon today.

My phone calls went unanswered and she did not have a fax which would have been very useful for emergencies.

She ignored Dr. David Oas' pleas and his written statements warning about the dangers to my daughter from handing her over to Susan.

And in spite of the urgency of the matter, she refused to accommodate my request that she speak with him, call him.

She called him a hired gun, even though I explained to her that he performed a court-mandated evaluation in the process getting to know me and Susan and Teddy, my daughter, personally.

And while she apparently felt it was necessary to eventually visit my daughter at Susan's, she decided to ignore the fact that up to--until last year's catastrophic events, Teddy spent every day with me, that I raised her from birth and that clearly I was the more caring of the two parents, always having chosen personal care for our baby, as opposed to Susan's choice of handing her to strangers.

The fact that I am the better educated, more knowledgeable in medicine and child development, more insightful and more honest of the two parents was also not a factor in her thinking.

Additionally, when I complained to the Oregon judge that I was not notified when my daughter was hospitalized and that having found out about her hospitalization inadvertently from other sources, Susan instructed the hospital staff to not allow me to visit, Susan testified in court under oath, in Oregon, that she informed the law guardian, Ms. Cotler, immediately and that she was asked to let me know.

She did not let me know and she did not intervene to allow my sick child to see me, the person to whom she is most attached to and the one she respects the most.

And while Mr. Domicello, Susan's court-appointed attorney in New York, had the decency to intervene and sign a letter regarding the New York Family Court decision after Susan lied to the Oregon Court about it, she chose to do nothing.

In spite of numerous warnings to her about the potential dangers to my daughter from her unjustified forced separation, she exhibited a complete lack of a sense of urgency and, upon my daughter's hospitalization, complete apathy.

As she knows, my daughter, who was previously never admitted to a hospital, was hospitalized three times last year, which was after our separation.

She also suffered brain damage and severe disabilities, which were not present at the time that I contacted her.

I cannot imagine what the role of the law guardian would entail if it involved ignoring dangers to a child's life.

She had every opportunity to intervene and to ask the Court to take action, so as to prevent this calamity.

Instead, she chose to postpone the hearing, in which Your Honor reinstated the then in effect Oregon order where my daughter spent her days with me, so as to facilitate the sinister goals of the other side, and she cited Jan Zager's late filing of an Order to Show Cause as an excuse.

I believe her actions are shameful and they portray not just incompetence and dereliction of duty, but a failure as a human being.

As far as I'm concerned, she is as responsible for the terrible harm that was inflicted on my daughter and to me as Susan is, and I view her as someone who has Teddy's blood in her hands.

Now, there are additional reasons why Ms. Cotler should be dismissed, namely, she was appointed to this position without any of the criteria for a law guardian as provided in the Family Court Act being met, and I'm talking about Article 2, Part 4, Sections 242 and 249; Article 3, Part 5, Section 354.2; Article 7, Part 5, Section 760; Article 10, Part 1, Section 1016, and Part 7, Section 1075.

She was appointed last year seemingly for the purpose of lending credence to falsehoods emanating from the other side, which is another reason why she should be dismissed at once.

That the Court would allow Ms. Cotler's utterly unqualified and biased diagnosis of my daughter, Theodora Coutsoukis, while refusing the medical and educational records from the providers to whom the petitioner, that is, the other side, took my daughter which I submitted to this Court is irregular to say the least.

THE COURT: Do you want to respond? MS. COTLER: Well, Your Honor, this--it's very difficult to respond to these kind--this kind of diatribe. I have received this letter and rather than go through it point by point and take the Court's time--this is really not the appropriate forum for this--I will only say that I have certainly acted as a proper law guardian and, in fact, have been a great advocate of my client. But what I have found is that Mr. Coutsoukis believes that anyone who does not agree with him is out to get his daughter and, at this point, I have some real concerns about his psychological status and I would request a psychological examination. And I'm actually rather pleased that he put this letter before Your Honor because I think this letter is clear evidence of the difficulties that he has been having emotionally here. MR. COUTSOUKIS: I object to Ms. Cotler acting as a psychologist, a child development expert, and a psychiatrist here. She had every opportunity to look at the records from the hospital where my daughter was hospitalized. She has evidence of brain damage. She has all the medical records and educational records which show how my daughter was diminished. She ignored them. She just doesn't like to admit it. Now, regarding this, I would like to submit a letter that I sent to Mr. Domicello a couple of weeks ago. THE COURT: No. No. I'm not going to-- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay, I'll tell you what it says. THE COURT: No, just a minute. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Mr. Domicello-- THE COURT: No. Mr. Coutsoukis, now you wait. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. THE COURT: I want to hear from Mr. Domicello as to your application, as to vacate the appointment of Ms. Cotler. MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor, Robin Cotler is the law guardian in this case. She's an attorney. She's an attorney for the child. She's under no obligation to speak to any party in this matter, the mother or the father. All she has an obligation to do is, what I believe as a law guardian myself, is a two-fold requirement, to advocate for the child and to do what's in the child's best interest. I believe Robin Cotler has done so throughout the entire proceeding over the last year, plus. She's been in constant contact with my client, she--from what I understand, upon information and belief, she's been in constant contact with the child's medical providers and educational providers, and in contact with Mr. Coutsoukis. From my own personal knowledge, I am--I believe that if you don't agree with Mr. Coutsoukis, you don't know what you're talking about. Mr. Coutsoukis, as he stated, believes he has more knowledge than any of the doctors, any of the medical providers that my client has chosen to care for this child, and that just shows where Mr. Coutsoukis is coming from. And I would join in Ms. Cotler's application that Mr. Coutsoukis be placed--and I'm going to make this application once again after the hearing--that he be placed under supervision of the Department of Probation and that he be evaluated, clinically evaluated, psychiatric and psychiatric--psychological evaluations in this matter and follow the recommendations. I think he's a danger to my client and to--and potentially to his daughter. THE COURT: All right, I'm just--I'm going to rule on the application of Mr. Coutsoukis to vacate the appointment of Ms. Cotler. That will be denied. The Court has not found that the law guardian has been derelict in the performance of her duties owed to the child and to the Court. She is qualified to be on the law guardian panel under the standards imposed by law for these hearings and the rules of court. She continues to serve in this matter and many other cases. And your arguments are unsubstantiated, Mr. Coutsoukis, and they will be rejected. MR. COUTSOUKIS: I have some evidence to substantiate some of these. THE COURT: No, I'm not going into this anymore. That is the end of this. She will remain on this case. And without any further ado, I'm want to take testimony on the amended petition. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor, may I submit Federal Express letter showing her refusal of my correspondence repeatedly? THE COURT: No, that is irrelevant to this proceeding. I'm hearing testimony on the allegations in the petition. All right, the docket number on the amended petition remains the same as the original petition. It will not receive the X docket number. MR. DOMICELLO: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. COUTSOUKIS: I have another question, Your Honor. One of my witnesses came on a subpoena duces tecum. May I request that these documents that he brought be entered into the record at this time? THE COURT: I haven't heard any testimony. I have no idea who the witness is. I have no idea what his or her testimony is going to be or if it's going to be a motion to--in opposition to this witness testifying. Before any evidence is submitted into the record, Mr. Domicello or the law guardian may request an offer of proof of what type of testimony this witness is going to offer and, therefore, to offer any kind of testimony in evidence would only be premature. All right, let's start with the petitioner's case. MR. DOMICELLO: Thank you, Your Honor. I call Susan Samora. THE COURT: All right, Ms. Samora, you're going to be sworn in. Please take the witness stand. COURT OFFICER: Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? MS. SAMORA: (No audible response). COURT OFFICER: Please be seated. THE COURT: Okay, you can proceed. DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SUSAN SAMORA BY MR. DOMICELLO: Q Good morning, Ms. Samora. A Good morning, Mr. Domicello. Q You filed an amended petition alleging a family offense with this Court today. Is that correct? A Yes. Q With regard to the acts alleged in the petition, when did they take place? A Well, these have pretty much been ongoing situations. We've been exchanging our daughter at the Ossining Police Department for at least nine months. THE COURT: Her testimony today should be only as to the allegations in the original petition. MR. DOMICELLO: Yes, Your Honor, that's where we're looking at this point. Q Ms. Samora, please keep your testimony with regard to only allegations in the original petition and none with regard to the amended petition. A Okay. Well, then, the original petition was dealing with harassment, be it the telephone and the tele--and the fax. Q Okay, what time period did this alleged harassment take place? A Well, Mr. Coutsoukis has called my house. We moved to a new apartment in June, and from there on--I mean, there have been times, and I didn't write them down or tape them, but where he would call and say things that were unpleasant. I'd hang up on him, and that's why I'm hoping that the subpoenaed phone records will show that he would then repeatedly call and call and call. And either I would pick up or I wouldn't pick up or the answering machine would pick up and then he'd make some-- some terrible comments. And-- Q Well, could you explain to the Court what those terrible comments were, please, if you recall? A Well, I, you know, I--Mr. Coutsoukis' comments have been, as you've heard, blaming me for my--our daughter's condition. THE COURT: Okay, before you go any further, could you give a time frame on-- MR. DOMICELLO: Yes, I believe-- MS. SAMORA: From June of this year, Your Honor, till, I guess after I filed this petition. The incidences are not frequent. Q What you're saying, after you filed the original petition-- A Right. Q --they've been diminishing? A Right. Q But between June and the filing of the original petition-- A Right, that's when they-- Q --which was back on September-- A Right, that's when they-- Q --25th. A Right, that's-- Q Keep that time frame. A Okay. That's probably when they were involved. Now, I'm getting a little bit confused because--well, you be the judge of this. On Friday last, we had an exchange and I--my daughter was in the car-- THE COURT: No, I'm sorry, Ms. Samora, you can only testify as to what's in the original petition today. MS. SAMORA: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Q Between June and September 25, 1998. A Okay. Q Between June 5 and September 25. A Okay. Well, comments that, you know, if she had bruises on her legs, you know, that I incurred the bruises. Maybe I'm getting confused. I mean, this is harassment for me. I can tell you how it started, okay? I was on the internet when-- Q Would you like to look at your petition to refresh your recollection? A Well, I know what the petition says, but now I'm getting confused with the amended one, I guess. Let's go back to the original petition and how it started cause that's the easiest for me to go form there, if that's okay. I was on the internet, it was 10:30 at night. Q When was this, before you-- A This was September 24, I believe-- Q Okay. A --or 25th. Q Uh-huh. A And 10:30 at night--I have a one- bedroom apartment, no one calls me after that, you know, after 10:00 because my daughter is sleeping in the bedroom. The phone rang, he's yelling at me that he had--he wants to fax me something. I said, "Okay, go ahead and fax," and then he faxes me this fax that says something about if I don't give him a book from our daughter's summer experience at St. Agnes, that he's gonna give me a court something--I forget, it was a subpoena. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Objection, Your Honor. A Something to that effect. THE COURT: Objection to what? MR. COUTSOUKIS: If she has a fax, she should produce it. This is hearsay. MR. SAMORA: It's part of the-- THE COURT: Well, she can testify to what's in the fax. MR. DOMICELLO: She can testify to it. THE COURT: Overruled. A Okay. It's part-- THE COURT: It's not hearsay. A It's part of the document there. The document that was given to the--to Judge Tolberg (phonetic) had the copy of his fax there and I'm sure it's part of the record, Your Honor. So I then immediately faxed him, "No more faxes after 9:00." The phone, he kept on calling me and calling me on the phone, and it was 11:30. I said, that's it, I can't take these phone calls anymore, and it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I called the police department, I said, "Please, call this man. Make him stop calling me at this time." I have eighty-year old landlords downstairs. The walls are very thin, they don't need to hear the phone ringing at this time. And the police-- Q How many times did he call you that night? A Well, you know, I don't remember, but at least three, maybe four. I didn't--I turned the phone off, so I don't even know how many times he called. Q And what if anything did he say to you during these phone calls? A He just wanted to get whatever it was he wanted, and that's as much as I remember. You know, you get these phone calls, after a while you try not to even remember it because--I just, you know, I'm tired of listening to him. Q With regard to letters, have you been sent any letters by Mr. Coutsoukis between June 5 and September 25, 1998? MR. COUTSOUKIS: I don't believe letters are in the complaint, the original complaint. MR. DOMICELLO: I believe they are, Your Honor. And it's in the-- the first paragraph of the amended petition speaks to-- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Forget the amended petition. She wants the original complaint. MR. DOMICELLO: That's in the--the first--let me finish, the first paragraph of the amended petition is the first paragraph of the original petition. THE COURT: Well, the original petition refers to telephone and fax. MS. SAMORA: But isn't it basically harass-- THE COURT: Just a minute. In the amended petition-- MR. DOMICELLO: Yes. THE COURT: --the first paragraph indicates that he--there's a reference to telephone and letters and fax. MR. COUTSOUKIS: The amended one? MR. DOMICELLO: Well, then I'll limit my questioning to fax and faxes. THE COURT: Okay. Q What did Mr. Coutsoukis fax you, if anything? A He could--well, this fax, for example, that was threatening that if I didn't give him something that he was going to go to court. Okay, he could fax questions on Teddy. Q When you say could, did he? A Well, I think that--you know, I don't remember the date. That's what I'm concerned about. If there's something in my file that is a date of--prior to the 25th of September, I don't remember that. If I'm allowed to get my file, I would, you know, look it up. Q Well, continue with your testimony. A Well-- MR. COUTSOUKIS: You have to ask her a question, sir. MR. DOMICELLO: I-- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor, she can't-- MR. DOMICELLO: I would--I-- THE COURT: I'll make that decision. Go ahead. A In terms of the faxes, he could ask questions about Teddy, ask questions about scheduling, you know, things-- Q What kind of questions? A Things-- Q Scheduling? A Things of that--scheduling, what time is she going to be picked up or can he have her this time, or there was a situation where his mother was returning to Greece and he asked via fax if he could have her at that time. Q Did you request that he stop faxing you these--this correspondent? A I didn't--I asked him--when the faxes were appropriate, no. But if the faxes were threatening or--how would you say for this--this--you know, I'm gonna, you know, get you in court on Monday if you don't do something kind of situation. Especially what was annoying about that was he had the book. I had taken x amount of time to fax--to xerox the whole book for him, so he had it in his possession. So that was annoying. Q So there was no reason for him to fax you about that book. Is that correct? A No, there was no reason. He just-- he--as you see, he's got a lot of papers. He doesn't even know what he has, I don't think. Q Between June 5 and September 24, 1998, were there any other times other than that September 24 date, that he would call you repeatedly? A You know, I can't--without the phone records, I don't remember. There could have been, you know, numerous times. I'm sorry, I, you know, didn't write it down. I probably should have, but I didn't. Q Do you believe there are numerous times? A Yes. How many is numerous? More than three? Q A day-- A Oh. Q --my question is. A Well, when he's in a mode of not letting go and exasperated, if you hang up the phone on him, he'll just keep calling back. Somebody else, you hang the phone up on, that is a message to that person that--that you don't want to speak to them. To Mr. Coutsoukis, it's license to just keep calling. Q And you believe that there were periods--that there were those such situations before June 4--5 and June--I mean, September 24, 1998? A As I said, it's a strong possibility. Q And that records, the telephone records will show that? A I would hope so. Q With regard to exchanges of your daughter, pick up and delivery for visitation at the police station, which police station is that? A That's the Ossining Police Station on Croton Avenue in-- THE COURT: I'm sorry. Mr. Domicello-- MR. DOMICELLO: That's on the original petition, Your Honor, page two, with regard to the pick up and drop off of the daughter. A I have-- Q What happens during those pick ups and drop offs? A Anything from Mr. Coutsoukis stepping on toes while I'm holding my daughter, our daughter, to if he sees bruises on her legs, looks to kill. Q What do you mean sees bruises on her legs? What did she do? A Well, for example, if she has a dress on-- THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. MS. SAMORA: I'm sorry. THE COURT: I think we're getting a little bit afield as to the original petition, Mr. Domicello. You're getting into allegations that are in the amended petition or appear to resemble allegations in the original petition. MR. DOMICELLO: Okay, Your Honor. I will limit my questions to the original petition. A Could I have a copy of the original petition? Q Did Mr. Coutsoukis ever say that you are responsible for the murder of your daughter? A He said I will pay for it. Q You will pay for the murder of your daughter? A Yes. Q What if anything else did he say during that conversation and when did that conversation take place? A It was in the late summer, I believe, early fall. Q Of 1998? A Right. And-- Q Could you explain to the Court what happened during that incident? A I--it was during an exchange and that comment came out and, subsequent to that I then--to try and-- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor, I'll object to the theatricalities. A --to try and protect-- THE COURT: Well, Mr. Coutsoukis, be patient now. MR. COUTSOUKIS: I'd like to remind the Court I was lambasted for crying when I was dragged in here in handcuffs. THE COURT: Well, Mr. Coutsoukis, please. MR. COUTSOUKIS: She is acting. THE COURT: Please. Mr. Coutsoukis, one more remark like that-- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead. A I then took to taking a tape recorder to guard against those kind of comments. Q Was your daughter present during that comment? A I believe she was. Q And how old is your daughter? A Five. Q Did he--did Mr. Coutsoukis explain what he meant by the murder? Obviously your daughter's alive, correct? A Yes. Q She's doing well under your care? A Very much so. Q Did Mr. Coutsoukis explain what he meant by murder if your daughter is alive and doing well? A No, he did not explain and I can only infer. He has blamed--he has blamed me for--for her illness, her neurological issues. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor, she's still doing it. Please. THE COURT: No, Mr. Coutsoukis, please. I'm gonna have to ask you to just be tolerant. Q What condition does your daughter have? A She has a seizure disorder and was termed chronic encephalopathy-- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Irrelevant. A --which means-- MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor, objection. I think it's relevant. THE COURT: What's the relevancy of-- MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor, Mr. Coutsoukis is blaming my client and harassing her, and to call her a murderer in the presence of her daughter for conditions that my client had nothing to do with, I'm eliciting testimony with regard to what condition might be--the child has. THE COURT: I'll allow it to that purpose. A It's chronic encephalopathy, which means a brain injury. Q Are you aware of the cause of it? A No, I am not. Q Could it have been anything that you've done that caused this condition? A No, I don't believe it's anything that I've done. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Excuse me, she's not a medical expert, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. MR. DOMICELLO: I have no further questions, Your Honor, with regard to the original petition. THE COURT: All right. Are you asking for a continuance at this time? MR. DOMICELLO: Yes, Your Honor. I'm asking a continuance with regard to the allegations contained in the amended petition and to obtain the records that will sustain the petition. MR. COUTSOUKIS: I'm not sure I understand what he's asking for. THE COURT: He's asking that the Court put this hearing over to another date to enable her to continue and conclude her direct examination, at which time we'll proceed with cross- examination. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay, but can I answer that request, please? There are three of them, two of them lawyers, three brains, six hands, two law degrees, one of them otherwise fully unemployed-- THE COURT: Well, what are you talking about? MR. COUTSOUKIS: --with plenty of free time in her hand, a commodity that I cannot afford without losing my livelihood, which does not consist of practicing law. This is another delaying tactic of the sort that they had been practicing from the moment Susan landed in New York court a year ago. If the Court does not dismiss their request for this adjournment, it should at least revoke the temporary order of protection which would otherwise stay over my head as long as they have--find whatever ways to delay. Moreover, I would like to tell you what Mr. Domicello told me on the phone. THE COURT: No. No. MR. DOMICELLO: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: No, I'm not getting into that, Mr. Coutsoukis. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Then I would like to submit some evidence-- THE COURT: No. MR. COUTSOUKIS: --to the fact that this is a delaying tactic and it has absolutely nothing to do with me or allegations or with an Order of Protection. THE COURT: The Court will overrule your objection, the matter will be continued. A temporary Order of Protection will be extended until the next date-- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay, now-- THE COURT: --and that way both sides will get a copy-- MR. COUTSOUKIS: --do I have a chance to cross-examine the witness? THE COURT: When she's through with her direct. Wait outside, please. You'll get a date from the clerk. MR. COUTSOUKIS: I have a witness-- THE COURT: That is it. MR. COUTSOUKIS: --who came in here with documents. THE COURT: That is it, Mr. Coutsoukis. COURT OFFICER: Sir, I'm sorry, that's it. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. COURT OFFICER: All parties step outside. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Is there an expedient way to get a transcript? Every time I ask it takes weeks and weeks even though the Court thinks we can get one overnight. How do I do that? THE COURT: Speak to the clerk. (End of Proceedings) * * * STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF ROCKLAND) ss: I, Jeanette Carelli, certify that the foregoing transcript of the proceedings in the Family Court of Samora vs. Coutsoukis, Docket No. 0-972-98, was prepared to the best of my ability, using four-track electronic transcription equipment, and is a true and accurate record of the proceedings. _______________________ Jeanette Carelli Sandy Saunders Reporting 2 New Hempstead Road New City, New York 10956 Dated: December 9, 1998