FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
SUSAN SAMORA,
Petitioner,
-against- Docket #O-972-98
PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS, FU #53516
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 :
HON. INGRID S. BRASLOW
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
Samora.
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
Services.
MS. ROLSTON: Pam Rolston
(phonetic), senior case worker for
(inaudible).
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
petition?
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
petition?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I have
accepted service of the petition.
THE COURT: Of the amended
petition?
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.
We--
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
witnesses--
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
continuance--
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
Honor.
THE COURT: --plus additional
ones.
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
these--
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
that?
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.
Coutsoukis--
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
condition--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay, there
are three of them.
THE COURT: --(inaudible) in
Court.
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
fatherless--
THE COURT: Well, in other
words--
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
violation--
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
proof.
THE COURT: I'm going to let
that remain on the record.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: And I have
proof.
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
ready.
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
add?
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
guardian?
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
just--
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