FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS

DOCKET NO. F-28901-08

ELENA SVENSON,
Petitioner,
OBJECTIOIV TO
-against- SUPPORT MAGISTRATE
FINAL ORDER
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Respondent.

STATE OF NEW YORK:)

SS:)

COUNTY OF KINGS:)

I, MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, am a party to the above-entitled proceeding and

object to the Final Order made by the Support Magistrate John Fasone on February 25,
201 0 upon the following grounds:
BACKGROUND AND UNDISPUTED FACTS

1. Prior to Petitioner commencing this action, I pleaded with her to settle our

problems amicably in order to avoid unnecessary legal expense and the

aggravation of litigation. I offered to participate in mediation. Petitioner promised

to consider mediation and told me that she would let me know about her decision

later. However, she never gave me an answer and while living with Respondent at

4336 Manhattan Ave in Brooklyn started this litigation by quietly filing an order
 of protection based on false allegations and proceeding to provoke violence by

Respondent which I figured out and left above mentioned premises to avoid

arrest. Petitioner illegally leased the parties' property having an address of 120

Oceana Drive West, Apt. 5D, Brooklyn, NY 11235 (the "Premises") and kept all

of the rent from such leasing ($2,850.00 a month), while I was paying the

mortgage and other expenses entirely on my own. This portion of Petitioner's

income was not considered by Support Magistrate Fasone during trial. The

Petitioner also stole my personal property and trashed our apartment at 4336

Manhattan Ave, Brooklyn. Next morning she proceeded to harass me at my job

by bringing our son David and bad-mouthing me to my employer, Mr. Harlan

Wittenstein, Esq. and asking him to fire me.

2. This order of Protection was withdrawn by Petitioner Svenson during trial in

Family Court. (Exhibit A) That order of protection caused Respondent to pay

$5000 to his attorney to prove that the Order of Protection was frivolous.

3. At the beginning of the paternity proceeding, I made numerous overtures to

Petitioner in attempt to settle this matter, including offering to pay child support.

Both Petitioner and her attorney refused to negotiate on this point. I also

attempted to obviate the need for a paternity proceeding by requesting that the

parties submit privately without David Svenson's (hereinafter the "Child)

knowledge to a DNA test not so 1 could avoid paying child support but so I would

know for certain once and for all if David Svenson my son. Again, Petitioner

refused to abide by my request. Instead, she brought my Child to psychiatrist to

treat him after she told him that I deny fatherhood - a move designed to damage
 my relationship with Child.

4. With Petitioner refusing to negotiate in or about December 2008, I requested that

this Court allow DNA testing as I had good reason to believe that I was not the

father of the Child including the fact that the Child has the same last name

(Svenson) as Petitioner's former husband with whom she was married while

having relationship with me in 1992. Later I learned that they used me to commit

immigration marriage fraud. These facts I only discovered during this action.

- Rather than simply allow the DNA tests to go forward, Petitioner decided to make

a motion to estop the DNA tests. Thereafter, after several months of motion

practice and before any decision on the motion was rendered by the Court,

Petitioner decided to withdraw the motion - exactly what she did with Order of

Protection! Indeed, Petitioner could have saved the Court time, thousands of

dollars of her own money, and thousands of my money if she would have simply

allowed the tests in the first place!

5. From October, 2008 till August, 2009 she was not concerned with her not getting

child support, but rather with inflicting as much financial damage on me as

possible. She succeeded at this endeavor to the point that while she was

represented by an attorney Respondent had to finish trial as a Pro Se litigant.

Respondent is unable to understand how on earth it is possible for Petitioner,

while admitting to the Court that she is not working, still has money to pay her

attorney $300 an hour. Moreover, she tells the Court that she is not going to work

either. And yet her Financial Disclosure Affidavit appears to indicate that she has

no money. The reason I am saying all this is to show the Court that she is clearly
 dishonest and yet gets favorable treatment.

RESPONDENT DID NOT GET DUE PROCESS AND WAS PREJUDICED BY

THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

4. The trial or hearing whichever this proceeding is called was conducted with

complete disregard of Civil Practice Law and Rules. Respondent's Discovery was

stayed before trial began. Petitioner's attorney used every delay tactics in

scheduling depositions in order to avoid taking them. The record is clear that

Petitioner and her counsel have been engaging in a pattern of malicious litigation

designed to make this proceeding as costly and inefficient as possible in order to

inflict great damage to Respondent.

5. During trial Petitioner alleged that she has no money and that she borrowed

money from her sister Larissa Gaber in order to finance this litigation.

Respondent knows for a fact that her sister is on public assistance in Germany.

Respondent's attorney served a trial subpoena on her sister in New York but Ms.

Gaber failed to attend in disobedience of the subpoena. Support Magistrate

Fasone refused to enforce subpoena and brushed off this issue completely.

6. Real evidence was ignored. The trial was one sided and conducted ufjustly based

on Petitioner's lies and allegations against Respondent. Respondent produced

financial disclosure affidavit and original pay stubs as required. Additionally,

Respondent produced an affirmation from his employer Harlan Wittenstein, Esq.,

an officer of the court, that Respondent's gross income is $4000 per month. And

lastly, Respondent produced original W-2 form for 2009 during last hearing day

on January 6, 2010 to which Petitioner's attorney objected. The Support

 Magistrate sustained that objection, implying that Respondent "influenced" the

formation of the W-2 form and it is not reliable evidence. That being the case he

could have conducted an evidentiary hearing or give Respondent a chance to tile

his 2009 tax return and bring it to court.

7. During the trial, Support Magistrate John Fasone ignored my attorney's objection

to Petitioner's Financial Affidavit i.e. that it was untruthhl and did not let him

examine Petitioner on that subject. Instead, he used it as evidence even though my

attorney pointed out to the Court that her Financial Affidavit was.mathematically

erroneous.

8. Petitioner's attorney did not produce any admissible document while using

insulting allegations that Respondent manipulated and minimized his income

which Support Magistrate allowed as evidence against Respondent and used to

make his decision.

9. These allegations should have been ignored, or as an alternative, depositions

should have been ordered along with production of documents such as bank

statements in order to verify Respondent's assets.

10. On August 6, 2009 Support Magistrate Fasone ordered temporary child support

in the amount of $627. He used the same pay stubs provided by Respondent for

his calculations to arrive at this number.

11. In his final order Support Magistrate Fasone chose to use my 2005 tax return

stolen from me by Petitioner which is in no way representative of my income in

2009 and 2010. However, Petitioner conveniently omits my 2006 W-2 form in her

possession (also stolen from me) that shows $46,000 gross income fiom evidence
 she presented to Support Magistrate Fasone. Her attorney accused me of tax

evasion, being a partner in a law firm, and manipulation of my employer's income

in order to pay less child support. I pointed out to Support Magistrate Fasone that

in 2006 Petitioner did not file for child support and that I did not have any

"incentive" to manipulate my income. However, this 2006 W-2 form (evidence)

was unjustly brushed off by Support Magistrate John Fasone from consideration.

12. The proceeding appeared to be staged against Respondent. It appears to me that

evidence was conveniently selected in order to reward Petitioner for her refusal to

work. At one point, Support Magistrate Fasone asked Petitioner why she is not

working. Petitioner replied that she is not going to work since IRS will withhold

most of her pay. Again, Petitioner alleges that it is all Respondent's fault and it

appears to me that she gets rewarded with appears to be "maintenance" for

Petitioner rather than just child support. If I subtract temporary support amount of

$627 from permanent support amount of $2045 ordered I will arrive at $1,418 per

month which is her reward amount. It is obvious that Petitioner will spend this

money on herself and not on my son since she is not going to work.

13. Support Magistrate Jennifer Castaldi verbally ordered Petitioner to obtain health

insurance - Child Health ,Plus as a temporary measure while the litigation

continued. Petitioner willfully ignored that order and kept my son uninsured in

order for her to keep this issue alive. She hypocritically alleged that I intentionally

canceled my son's health insurance and that he is in greater need of health

insurance. Respondent learned that it would cost about $200 per month, but could

not apply on behalf of my son due to the fact that I am the noncustodial parent. As
 a result, my son was uninsured and still is for more than one year. He is

essentially held hostage by Petitioner so she can continue to abuse the process.

14. Closiilg argument was not allowed. Last hearing on January 6, 201 0 started very

late. Support Magistrate John Fasone apologized for the late start and Respondent

was under impression that this hearing would be continued. Every one was rushed

with questions and answers. So when it ended late and court officer asked to

address an envelope, Respondent thought that he would be notified by mail of a

new hearing date. Respondent had no idea that the trial had ended.

15. In conclusion, attached as exhibit B copy of Respondent's paystub. It shows that

the amount of $2045 ordered per month could not be withheld from $4000 gross

monthly income by Respondent's employer legally. In accordance with Consumer

Credit Protection Act Limitations on Withholding for Support 15 U.S.C. and Fair

Debt Collection Practice the Law allows withholding maximum of 65% from my

pay. Accordingly, no more than $1 882 per month would be possible to collect

from $4000 gross income. That 65% must include $2045 per inonth plus

$29,882.42 of arrears ordered which is mathematically impossible to withhold.

Also, with such a small income above mentioned Law does not allow to withhold

additional $700 per month for child's health insurance ordered. Hence, the whole

Final Order of Support Magistrate Fasone is illegal as a matter of Law.

THEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Final Order of Support Magistrate

John Fasone be set aside and a new proceeding started in accordance with CPLR of

The State of New York, and for such other and further relief as to this Court may
 seem just and proper.

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY

Sworn to before me this

- .
Day of April, 201 0 [ i / , ~ ..;.i i i ;.:. 1 .. ;.-id

Notary Public State of New York

NO. 24-4999570
Qualified in Kings County
Commission Expires .hdy 27,20 &
Exhibit A
 At a term of the Family Court of the
State of New York, held in and for the
County of Kings, at 330 Jay Street,
Brooklyn, NY 1120 1, on November
25,2008

PRESENT: Hon. Daniel Turbow

In the Matter of a Family Offense Proceeding File #: 142040
Docket #: 0-32679-08
Elena Svenson,
Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL
- against -

Michael Krichevsky,
Respondent.

A petition under Article 8 of the Family Court Act, having been filed in this Court on October
27,2008 for the following: Order of Protection;

The Petitioner having appeared with counsel; and the Respondent having appeared with counsel;

And the Court finds that after hearing the proofs and testimony offered in relation to the case.

It is hereby ordered that the petition is DISMISSED for the following reason(s): PETITION
IS WITHDRAWN; and it is further

ORDERED that the within petition is withdrawn and the parties' dispute is settled upon the
following terms and condition:
Respondent agrees not to have any contact with theparties' child, David Svenson d.0.b. 8/14/94,
except as may be agreed upon by the parties through counsel or as may be ordered by the court.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 1 1 13 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL

FROM THIS ORDER MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE
ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING
OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, OR 30 DAYS
AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE LAW GUARDIAN UPON THE
APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.

Dated: November 25,2008 ENTER

Exhibit B
WITTENSTEIN 8 ASSOC.