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 Kotler, 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. KOTLER:  Robin Kotler, 
           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. Kotler 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. KOTLER:  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. KOTLER:  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. KOTLER:  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. KOTLER:  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 Kotler, 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--
                         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 Sands, her Oregon attorney, and
                     a number of witnesses and 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
                     inciteful 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. Kotler, 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.
                     Kotler 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. Kotler'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. KOTLER:  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. Kotler 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. Kotler. 
                         MR. DOMICELLO:  Your Honor, 
           Robin Kotler 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 Kotler
                     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. Kotler'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. Kotler.  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