Answer Article 78 2017 - 03 - 28 - 23 - 07 - 40

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT

-X
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Falsely Accused, Claimant,

STATE RESPONDENTS'
-against- ANSWER AND
AFFIRMATION IN
Judge Dean Kusakabe OPPOSITION TO
Judge William Frank Perry THE ARTICLE 78
Judge Maria Arias PETITION
Judge Jeanette Ruiz
Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson Docket No. 2016-3160
Support magistrate Michael Milsap
Support magistrate John Fasone Family Court, Kings Co.
Clerk ofcourt Robert Ratansky Index No. F-28901-08/13F
Unknown clerks ofcourt
Elena Svenson
Respondents.
X
State Respondents, the Honorable Dean Kusakabe, William Frank Perry, Maria Arias,
Jeanette Ruiz, Edwina Richardson-Mendelson, all judges ofthe Family Court ofthe State of
New York, Kings County("Family Court"); the Honorable Michael Milsap, and John Fasone,
both Support Magistrates ofthe Family Court, and Robert Ratanski,formerly Clerk ofthe
Family Court(collectively referred to as the "Family Court respondents"), by their attorney,the
Attorney General of the State ofNew York, as and for their answer to the verified petition in this
proceeding commenced pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules("CPLR"),
respectfully allege that they:
1. Deny each and every allegation of the petition except to the extent that the
allegations are admitted herein.
CHARLES F. SANDERS,an attorney admitted to practice before the courts ofthis state,
hereby affirms that the following is true and correct:

2. I am an Assistant Attorney General in the Office ofthe Attomey General ofthe
State of New York. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances ofthis matter, based upon my
review ofthe petition, the papers annexed thereto, records from the underlying Family Court
proceedings, and communications with officials with the Unified Court System.
3. This affirmation is submitted in opposition to the "Verified Petition"("Petition"),
dated December 19,2016,by Petitioner Michael Krichevsky which seeks relief pursuant to
CPLR Article 78 seeking to annul the determinations ofSupport Magistrates John Fasone and
Michael Milsap. See Notice of Appeal By Verified Petition, page 1. For the reasons set forth
herein. Petitioner's application against the Family Court respondents should be denied and the
proceeding dismissed in its entirety.
The Underlying Family Court Proceedings
4. On November 3,2008, Elena Svenson filed a Family Offense Petition, dated
October 27,2008,in the Family Court, Kings County seeking financial child support from
Plaintiff Krichevsky for their child.
5. After various submissions by the respective parties indicating their respective

financial circumstances and proceedings held before Support Magistrate Fasone, by Order of
Support and Findings of Facts, both dated February 3,2010, the Family Court(Fasone, Support
Magistrate)determined and directed that Plaintiff Krichevsky is to pay $2,045.00 monthly
toward the support ofthe child at issue, and set the amount ofsupport arrears as $31,599.42,
from the date ofthe filing ofthe support petition with the Family Court.Âpril 2,2012
Family Court Decision and Order and February 3,2010 Family Court Final Order ofSupport
collectively annexed hereto as Exhibit"A".
6. By order, July 6,2011, the Family Court(Fasone, Support Magistrate) set the amount
ofchild support arrears at $53,5135.76 and a moneyjudgment in the sum of$21,916.34 was
entered because Petitioner Krichevsky failed to obey the February 3,2010 Order requiring him
to pay $2,045.00 monthly toward the support ofthe child at issue. Copies ofthe July 6,2011
Family Court, Kings County Order and July 6,2011 Order Entry Money Judgment are
collectively annexed hereto as Exhibit"B".
7. After the filing ofvarious objections by Plaintiff Krichevsky seeking a reduction and
modification ofthe Final Order, by Decision and Order, dated April 2,2012, the Family Court
(Hepner,J.) denied the objections and further found that Family Court Act 439 empowers
support magistrates to "hear,determine and grant any relief within the powers ofofthe court,
including to determine findings offact and a final order. See Exhibit"A": April 2,2012 Family
Court Decision and Order, p. 6.
8. By letter, dated June 24,2014,counsel to Judge Ruiz, the Supervising Judge ofthe
Family Court, Kings County, replied to Petitioner Krichevsky on behalfof Judge Ruiz and Judge
Richardson-Mendelson, the Administrative Judge ofthe Family Court, informing him that any
disagreement that he may have with findings, decisions, and orders rendered by Support
Magistrate Fasone should be judicially reviewed by the provisions contained in the Family Court
Act and the Civil Practice Law and Rules and that neitherjudge has the authority to review such
matters in their respective administrative capacity. A copy ofthe June 24,2014 Family Court
letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C".
9. By Findings ofFact and Decision, and Order Entry Money Judgment, dated
October 6,2014, the Family Court{Milsap, Support Magistrate)determined that Petitioner
Krichevsky failed to obey the July 6,2011 Family Court Order "in that Michael Krichevsky
failed to pay the sum of$124,079.38, which amount the Court[found] to be the arrears due and
owing under said Order" and ordered the entry ofthe judgment in the amount of$124,079.38
and to vacate the July 6,2011 Money Judgment to be replaced by the October 6,2014judgment.
Copies ofthe October 6,2014 Findings ofFact and Decision, and Order Entry Money Judgment
are collectively annexed hereto as Exhibit"D".
10. By Findings ofFact(Milsap, Support Magistrate)and Order ofCommitment and
Sentence ofCommitment(Perry, J.), both dated December 2,2014, the Family Court
determined that Petitioner Krichevsky willfully failed to comply with the Family Court's July 6,
2011 Order for him to pay $2,045 per month for child support, having incurred $124,079.38 in
child support arrears, and failing to purge himselfofthe court's finding of willfulness and
thereby committed him to the custody ofthe New York City Department of Corrections for a
term ofsix months(6 mos.)to be served on weekends commencing on the weekend of January 2,
2015 and to end on the weekend ofJuly 2,2015 or to cease and be discharged ifPetitioner
Krichevsky pays the purge amount of$10,000.00. Copies ofthe December 2,2014 Findings of
Fact and Order ofCommitment and Sentence ofCommitment are collectively annexed hereto as
Exhibit "E".
11. By decision and order, dated January 8,2015, the Family Court(Kusakabe, J.)
denied Petitioner Kiichevsky's objections to the "determination of Support Magistrate Michael
Milsap entered on October 3,2014, wherein [Petitioner Krichevsky] was found to be in willful
violation ofthe court's order ofsupport and entering a moneyjudgment in the amount of
$124,079.38." A copy of the January 8,2015 Decision and Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit
"F".
12. By notice ofappeal. Petitioner Krichevsky appealed the January 8,2015 Decision
and Order. A copy ofthe Notice ofAppeal is atmexed hereto as Exhibit"G".

13. By order, dated June 19,2015, the Family Court(Arias, J.) denied Petitioner
Krichevsky's motion for poor person's relief
[b]ased on the fact that the Petitioner, Michael Krichevsky, did not provide any
financial information documenting how he is currently supporting himself. Whilef
the Petitioner argues that he no longer is able to work at this prior job due to his
various medical issues,he does not provide any documentation ofhis current
basis ofsupport. Thus,Petitioner's motion is denied.
A copy ofthe June 19,2015 Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit"H".
14. By order, dated October 5,2015,the Family Court(Arias, J.) denied Petitioner
Krichevsky's request for a protective order because of his failure to appear on the return date for
his application. A copy ofthe October 5,2015 Family Court Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit
"I".
15. By order, dated March 7,2017, this Court dismissed Petitioner Krichevsky's
appeal ofthe January 8,2015 Family Court Order in Matter ofSvenson v. Krichevskv because of
his failure to prosecute the matter. A copy ofthe March 7,2017 Second Department Order is
annexed hereto as Exhibit "J".
16. During 2015, the child pertaining to the underlying support proceedings under
Article 4 ofthe Family Court Act reached 21 years ofage, the age ofemancipation under the
statue, and thereby terminating the parental obligation for child support. Family Court Act,
413(a).
The Article 78 Proceeding
17. By Verified Petition ("Petition"), dated December 19,2016,Petitioner Krichevsky

seeks relief pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking to annul the determinations ofSupport
Magistrates John Fasone and Michael Milsap.^Notice of Appeal By Verified Petition, page 1.
No Legal Grounds Exist For This Article 78 Proccedin
A. General Standards For An Article 78 Proceeding
18. Writs of prohibition and mandamus are only issued where there is a clear legal
right to the relief sought because oftheir extraordinary nature. Kevillv v. Honorof.287 A.D.2d
504,505,731 N.Y.S.2d 636,637(2d Dep't 2001). See also Matter of Grain Communications.
Inc. V. Hushes. 74 N.Y.2d 626,628,541 N.Y.S.2d 971,972(1989); State v. King.36 N.Y.2d 59,
62,364 N.Y.S.2d 879,882(1975); Matter of Gimorich v. Board ofEducation of the Citv of New
York.306 N.Y.401,406(1954). Even where there is a clear legal right, prohibition is available
only when a coiul acts or threatens to act either withoutjurisdiction or in excess ofits authorized
powers. See Matter of Holtzman v Goldman.71 N.Y.2d 564,569,528 N.Y.S.2d 21,24(1988);
Matter ofRush v Mordue.68 N.Y.2d 348,352,509 N.Y.S.2d 493,495(1986). Mandamus will
lie only to compel the performance ofa ministerial rather than a discretionary act. Brusco v.
Braun.84 N.Y.2d 674,679,621 N.Y.S.2d 291,292-93(1994); Matter of Legal Aid Societv v
Scheinman.53 N.Y.2d 12, 16,439 N.Y.S.2d 882,884(1981); State v. King,sunra.36 N.Y.2d at
62-65,364 N.Y.S.2d at 882-84; D'Aenese v. Scher. 306 A.D.2d 408,761 N.Y.S.2d 484(2d Dep't
2003).
19. An Article 78 proceeding cannot be used to compel a particular determination in a
judicial proceeding. Matter ofGimprich. supra.306 N.Y. at 406. S^ also Matter ofGrain
Communications. Inc.. suora. 74 N.Y.2d at 628,541 N.Y.S.2d at 972; Bloeth v. Marks. 20
A.D.2d 372,374-75,247 N.Y.S.2d 410,413-14(1st Dep't 1964), aoo. den'd. 15 N.Y.2d 481
(1964). Nor can an Article 78 proceeding be used to "correct or prevent trial errors of
substantive law or procedure, however grievous." LaRocca v. Lane. 37 N.Y.2d 575,579,376
N.Y.S.2d 93,97(1975). See also Jacobs v. Altman.69 N.Y.2d 733, 735,512 N.Y.S.2d 361,362
(1987); Veloz v. Rothwax.65 N.Y.2d 902,903-04,493 N.Y.S.2d 452,452-53(1985); Hennessv
V. Gorman.58 N.Y.2d 806,807,459 N.Y.S.2d 261 (1983); State v. King,supra. 36 N.Y.2d at 62,
364 N.Y.S.2d at 882.
B. The Appellate Division Lacks Jurisdiction

Over This Article 78 Proceedin|y
20. CPLR 506(b)states, in pertinent part, that
(b)Proceeding against body or officer. A proceeding against a body or officer

shall be commenced in any county within the judicial district where the
respondent made the determination complaint ofor refused to perform the duty
specifically enjoined upon him by law, or where the proceedings were brought or
taken in the course of which the matter sought to be restrained originated, or
where the material events otherwise took place, or where the principal office of
the respondent is located, except that
1. a proceeding against a justice ofthe supreme court or ajudge of a county
court or the court of general sessions shall be commenced in the appellate division
in the judicial department where the action, in the course of which the matter
sought to be enforced or restrained originated, is triable, unless a term ofthe
appellate division in that department is not in session, in which case the
proceeding may be commenced in the appellate division in an adjoining judicial
department;
21. New York courts have held that the Appellate Division has subject matter
jurisdiction over an action or Article 78 proceeding involving a justice ofthe County or Supreme
Court. See Nolan v. Luneen.61 N.Y.2d 788,789 ,473 N.Y.S.2d 388,389(1984); Matter of
Santorelli v. District Attomev of Westchester Countv.252 A.D.2d 504,504-05,676 N.Y.S.2d
494,494-95(2d Dep't 1998); Baba v. Evans.213 A.D.2d 248,624 N.Y.S.2d 18(1st Dep't
1995), app. dismissed.89 N.Y.2d 888,653 N.Y.S.2d 911 (1996); cert, denied sub. nom., Baba v.
1133 Building Corp.. 520 U.S. 1254 117 S. Ct. 2416(1997); Herald Co. v. Rov. 107 A.D.2d 515,
518,487 N.Y.S.2d 435,437(4th Dep't), apg. dismissed. 65 N.Y.2d 922, app. denied.65 N.Y.2d
610(1985)(" The jurisdiction ofthis court[Appellate Division] is invoked pursuant to CPLR
506(b)(1) which directs that a proceeding against a Justice ofthe Supreme Court shall be
commenced in the Appellate Division. This provision concerns subject matterjurisdiction (see.
Matter ofNolan v Lungen.61 NY2d 788; CPLR 7804[b])"and it is nonwaivable.").
Conversely, ifthe petition in the Article 78 proceeding fails to name or assert any claims against
a County or Supreme Courtjustice, that proceeding must be brought in the Supreme Court
against all the parties.
22. The statutory requirement should be enforced here. Petitioner Krichevsky brings
this Article 78 proceeding against the Family Courtjudges, support magistrates, and clerks here
in the Appellate Division, which is not permissible under CPLR 506(b). Accordingly, this
Court does notjurisdiction and the application should be denied and the proceeding dismissed in
its entirety.
C. This Proceeding Is Barred By The

Appiicable Statute Of Limitations
23. The petition in this proceeding should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 217 and
7804(f) because Petitioner Krichevsky failed to initiate this CPLR Article 78 proceeding within
the requisite statute oflimitations period.
24. CPLR 217 states that an Article 78 proceeding must be commenced within four
months after the order or decision sought to be reviewed became final or the refusal to perform
the duty believed to be mandated took place. CPLR 217(1);^Matter of Adventist Homes.
Inc. V. Ed. ofAssessors ofthe Town of Livingston. 83 N.Y.2d 878,880,612 N.Y.S.2d 371,372-
73(1994); New York State Association ofCounties v. Axelrod.78 N.Y.2d 158, 165,573
N.Y.S.2d 25,29(1991); Matter of Village of Westburv v. Dept. ofTransportation. 75 N.Y.2d 62,
72,550 N.Y.S.2d 604,614(1989); Matter of Biondo v. New York State Div. of Parole.60
N.Y.2d 832, 834,470 N.Y.S.2d 130(1983); Matter of Silvestri. v Hubert. 106 A.D.3d 924,925-
8
26,965 N.Y.S.2d 185, 186-87(2d Dep't 2013); Matter of Callwood v. Cabrera.49 A.D.Sd
394,395,854 N.Y.S.2d 42,43(lst Dep't 2008); Matter ofJames T. Rapoli v. Village ofRed
Hook.29 A.D.3d 1007,1008,815 N.Y,S.2d 722,723-24(2d Dep't 2006); Sumoter v. New York
City Hous. Auth.. 260 A.D.2d 176, 177,688 N.Y.S.2d 33,34(1st Dep't 1999); Washington v.
Alissa Kamnner Rudin. 256 A.D.2d 178,682 N.Y.S.2d 166(1st Dep't 1998); Simmons v.
PoDolizio. 160 A.D.2d 368,553 N.Y.S.2d 442(1st Dep't 1990);âlso Siegel, NY Prac. 566
[2d ed 1991].
25. The Petition fails to specify the time frame that the alleged acts occurred. All claims
and allegations concerning the Family Court respondents, including thejudges and support
magistrates presiding over and rendering determinations involving the underlying child support
proceedings, occurred at the latest in 2015 and essentially have concluded because the child
entitled to receive financial support from Petitioner Krichevsky reached 21 years ofage in 2015,
the age of emancipation pursuant to Family Court Act 413(a). The petition fails to establish
any action by the Family Court occurriiig within the last four months that may raise a cognizable
claim or cause ofaction.
26. Clearly, this Article 78 petition has not been timely commenced pursuant to CPLR
217 and should be dismissed.
D. Petitioner Fails To State A Claim Or A Clear

Legal Right To the Relief Sought
27. Petitioner fails to establish a clear legal right to the reliefsought, including a right of
performance that is clear ofdoubt or controversy or the duty to act is premised upon specific
statutory authority.Âssociation of Surrogate and Sunreme Court Reporters v. Bartlett.40
N.Y.2d 571,574,388 N.Y.S.2d 882,884(1976); Matter of Carpenter v. Citv ofTrov. 192

A.D.2d 920,921,597 N.Y.S.2d 203,204(3rd Dep't 1993); Matter of Rosen v. Brewster. 160
A.D.2d 946,554 N.Y.S.2d 667,668(2d Dep't 1990).
28. As detailed above. Petitioner Krichevsky fails to establish a legally cognizable claim
or cause action; this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction for an Article 78 proceeding
involving Family Courtjudges, support magistrates, and clerks pursuant to CPLR 506(b); and
the proceeding is barred by the statute oflimitations pursuant to CPLR 217 because no order or
decision sought to be reviewed became final or the refusal to perform the duty believed to be
mandated took place within the last four months. Accordingly, the application should be denied
and the proceeding dismissed.
WHEREFORE,your deponent respectfully requests ajudgment denjdng the petition and
dismissing the proceeding in its entirety and for such further and other reliefas this Court deems
just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York

March 23,2017
ERIC T.SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General ofthe
State of New York
Attomev for Familv Court Respondents
By:
CHARLES F. SANDERS
Assistant Attorney General
120 Broadway, 24"* Floor
New York, New York 10271
(212)416-8594/8610
10
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT
-X
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Falsely Accused, Claimant,

STATE RESPONDENTS'
-against- ANSWER AND
AFFIRMATION IN
Judge Dean Kusakabe OiPPOSITION TO
Judge William Frank Perry THE ARTICLE 78
Judge Maria Arias PETITION
Judge Jeanette Ruiz
Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson Docket No.2016-3160
Support magistrate Michael Milsap
Support magistrate John Fasone Family Court, Kings Co.
Clerk ofcourt Robert Ratansky Index No. F-28901-08/13F
Unknown clerks ofcourt
Elena Svenson
Respondents.
State Respondents, the Honorable Dean Kusakabe, William Frank Perry, Maria Arias,
Jeanette Ruiz, Edwina Richardson-Mendelson, all judges ofthe Family Court ofthe State of
New York, Kings County("Family Court"); the Honorable Michael Milsap, and John Fasone,
both Support Magistrates ofthe Family Court, and Robert Ratanski,formerly Clerk ofthe
Family Court(collectively referred to as the "Family Court respondents"), by their attorney, the
Attorney General ofthe State ofNew York, as and for their answer to the verified petition in this
proceeding commenced pursuant to Article 78 ofthe Civil Practice Law and Rules("CPLR"),
respectfully allege that they:
1. Deny each and every allegation of the petition except to the extent that the
allegations are admitted herein.
CHARLES F. SANDERS,an attorney admitted to practice before the courts of this state,
hereby affirms that the following is true and correct:

2. I am an Assistant Attorney General in the Office ofthe Attorney General ofthe
State ofNew York, I am familiar with the facts and circumstances ofthis matter, based upon my
review ofthe petition, the papers annexed thereto, records from the underlying Family Court
proceedings, and communications with officials with the Unified Court System.
3. This affirmation is submitted in opposition to the "Verified Petition"("Petition"),
dated December 19,2016, by Petitioner Michael Krichevsky which seeks relief pursuant to
CPLR Article 78 seeking to annul the determinations ofSupport Magistrates John Fasone and
Michael Milsap. See Notice of Appeal By Verified Petition, page 1. For the reasons set forth
herein. Petitioner's application against the Family Court respondents should be denied and the
proceeding dismissed in its entirety.
The Underlying Family Court Proceedings
4. On November 3,2008, Elena Svenson filed a Family Offense Petition, dated
October 27,2008,in the Family Court, Kings County seeking financial child support fi'om
Plaintiff Krichevsky for their child.
5. After various submissions by the respective parties indicating their respective

financial circumstances and proceedings held before Support Magistrate Fasone, by Order of
Support and Findings of Facts, both dated February 3,2010, the Family Court(Fasone,Support
Magistrate)determined and directed that Plaintiff Krichevsky is to pay $2,045.00 monthly
toward the support ofthe child at issue, and set the amount ofsupport arrears as S31,599.42,
from the date ofthe filing ofthe support petition with the Family CourtÂpril 2,2012
Family Court Decision and Order and February 3,2010 Family Court Final Order ofSupport
collectively annexed hereto as Exhibit"A".
6. By order, July 6,2011, the Family Court(Fasone, Support Magistrate)set the amount
ofchild support arrears at $53,5135.76 and a moneyjudgment in the sum of$21,916.34 was
entered because Petitioner Krichevsky failed to obey the February 3,2010 Order requiring him
to pay $2,045.00 monthly toward the support ofthe child at issue. Copies ofthe July 6,2011
Family Court, Kings County Order and July 6,2011 Order Entry Money Judgment are
collectively annexed hereto as Exhibit "B".
7. After the filing of various objections by Plaintiff Krichevsky seeking a reduction and
modification ofthe Final Order, by Decision and Order, dated April 2,2012, the Family Court
(Hepner,J.) denied the objections and further found that Family Court Act 439 empowers
support magistrates to "hear, determine and grant any relief within the powers ofofthe court,
including to determine findings offact and a final order. See Exhibit"A": April 2,2012 Family
Court Decision and Order, p. 6.
8. By letter, datai June 24,2014,counsel to Judge Ruiz, the Supervising Judge ofthe
Family Court, Kings County, replied to Petitioner Krichevsky on behalfof Judge Ruiz and Judge
Richardson-Mendelson, the Administrative Judge ofthe Family Court, informing him that any
disagreement that he may have with findings, decisions, and orders rendered by Support
Magistrate Fasone should be judicially reviewed by the provisions contained in the Family Court
Act and the Civil Practice Law and Rules and that neitherjudge has the authority to review such
matters in their respective administrative capacity. A copy ofthe June 24,2014 Family Court
letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit"C".
9. By Findings of Fact and Decision, and Order Entry Money Judgment,dated
October 6,2014, the Family Court(Milsap, Support Magistrate)determined that Petitioner
Krichevsky failed to obey the July 6,2011 Family Court Order "in that Michael Krichevsky
failed to pay the sum of$124,079.38, which amount the Court[found] to be the arrears due and
owing under said Order" and ordered the entry ofthe judgment in the amount of$124,079.38
and to vacate the July 6,2011 Money Judgment to be replaced by the October 6,2014judgment.
Copies ofthe October 6,2014 Findings of Fact and Decision, and Order Entry Money Judgment
are collectively annexed hereto as Exhibit"D".
10. By Findings of Fact(Milsap, Support Magistrate) and Order ofConunitment and
Sentence of Conunitment(Perry, J.), both dated December 2,2014, the Family Court
determined that Petitioner Krichevsky willfully failed to comply with the Family Court's July 6,
2011 Order for him to pay $2,045 per month for child support, having incurred $124,079.38 in
child support arrears, and failing to purge himselfofthe court's finding of willfulness and
thereby committed him to the custody ofthe New York City Department of Corrections for a
term ofsix months(6 mos.)to be served on weekends commencing on the weekend ofJanuary 2,
2015 and to end on the weekend ofJuly 2,2015 or to cease and be discharged ifPetitioner
Krichevsky pays the purge amount of$10,000.00. Copies ofthe December 2,2014 Findings of
Fact and Order ofCommitment and Sentence ofCommitment are collectively annexed hereto as
Exhibit"E".
11. By decision and order, dated January 8,2015, the Family Court(Kusakabe, J.)
denied Petitioner Krichevsky's objections to the "determination of Support Magistrate Michael
Milsap entered on October 3,2014, wherein [Petitioner Krichevsky] was found to be in willful
$124,079.38." A copy ofthe January 8,2015 Decision and Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit
"F".
12. By notice ofappeal. Petitioner Krichevsky appealed the January 8,2015 Decision
and Order. A copy ofthe Notice of Appeal is annexed hereto as Exhibit"G".

13. By order, dated June 19,2015, the Family Court(Arias, J.) denied Petitioner
Krichevsky's motion for poor person's relief
[b]ased on the fact that the Petitioner, Michael Krichevsky, did not provide any
financial information documenting how he is currently supporting himself. Whilef
the Petitioner argues that he no longer is able to work at this prior job due to his
various medical issues, he does not provide any documentation of his current
A copy ofthe June 19,2015 Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit"H".
14. By order, dated October 5,2015, the Family Court(Arias, J.) denied Petitioner
Knchevsky's request for a protective order because of his failure to appear on the return date for
his application. A copy ofthe October 5,2015 Family Court Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit
"I".
15. By order, dated March 7,2017, this Court dismissed Petitioner Krichevsky's
appeal ofthe January 8,2015 Family Court Order in Matter ofSvenson v. Krichevskv because of
his failure to prosecute the matter. A copy ofthe March 7,2017 Second Department Order is
annexed hereto as Exhibit "J".
16. During 2015,the child pertaining to the underlying support proceedings under
Article 4ofthe Family Court Act reached 21 years ofage, the age ofemancipation under the
statue, and thereby terminating the parental obligation for child support. See Family Court Act,
413(a).
The Article 78 Proceeding
17. By Verified Petition ("Petition"), dated December 19,2016, Petitioner Krichevsky
seeks relief pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking to annul the determinations of Support
Magistrates John Fasone and Michael Milsap.^Notice of Appeal By Verified Petition, page 1.
No Leaal Grounds Exist For This Article 78 Proceeding
A. General Standards For An Article 78 Proceeding
18. Writs of prohibition anU mandamus are only issued where there is a clear legal
right to the reliefsought because oftheir extraordinary nature. Kevillv v. Honorof.287 A.D.2d
504, 505,731 N.Y.S.2d 636,637(2d Dep't 2001). See also Matter of Grain Communications.
Inc. V. Hughes.74 N.Y.2d 626,628,541 N.Y.S.2d 971,972(1989); State v. King.36 N.Y.2d 59,
62,364 N.Y.S.2d 879,882(1975); Matter of Gimorich v. Board of Education ofthe Citv of New
York.306 N.Y.401,406(1954). Even where there is a clear legal right, prohibition is available
only when a court acts or threatens to act either withoutjurisdiction or in excess ofits authorized
powers. See Matter of Holtzman v Goldman.71 N.Y.2d 564,569,528 N.Y.S.2d 21,24(1988);
Matter of Rush v Mordue.68 N.Y.2d 348,352,509 N.Y.S.2d 493,495(1986). Mandamus will
lie only to compel the performance ofa ministerial rather than a discretionary act. Brusco v.
Braim.84 N.Y.2d 674,679,621 N.Y.S.2d 291,292-93(1994); Matter of Legal Aid Societv v
Scheinman.53 N.Y.2d 12, 16,439 N.Y.S.2d 882,884(1981); State v. King,suora. 36 N.Y.2d at
62-65,364 N.Y.S.2d at 882-84; D'Aenese v. Scher. 306 A.D.2d 408,761 N.Y.S.2d 484(2d Dep't
2003).
19. An Article 78 proceeding cannot be used to compel a particular determination in a
judicial proceeding. Matter ofGimorich. suora.306 N.Y. at 406. See also Matter of Grain
Communications. Inc.. suora. 74 N.Y.2d at 628,541 N.Y.S.2d at 972; Bloeth v. Marks.20
A.D.2d 372,374-75,247 N.Y.S.2d 410,413-14(1st Dep't 1964), app. den'd. 15 N.Y.2d 481
(1964). Nor can an Article 78 proceeding be used to "correct or prevent trial errors of
substantive law or procedure, however grievous." LaRocca v. Lane. 37 N.Y.2d 575,579, 376
N.Y.S.2d 93,97(1975). See also Jacobs v. Altman.69 N.Y.2d 733,735,512 N.Y.S.2d 361,362
(1987); Veioz v. Rothwax.65 N.Y.2d 902,903-04,493 N.Y.S.2d 452,452-53(1985); Hennessv
V. Gorman.58 N.Y.2d 806, 807,459 N.Y.S.2d 261 (1983); State v. King,supra. 36 N.Y.2d at 62,
364 N.Y.S.2d at 882.
B. The Appellate Division Lacks Jurisdiction

Over This Article 78 Proceeding
20. CPLR 506(b)states, in pertinent part, that
(b)Proceeding against body or officer. A proceeding against a body or officer

shall be commenced in any county within thejudicial district where the
respondent made the determination complained ofor refused to perform the duty
specifically enjoined upon him by law, or where the proceedings were brought or
taken in the course of which the matter sought to be restrained originated, or
where the material events otherwise took place, or where the principal office of
the respondent is located, except that
1. a proceeding against a justice ofthe supreme court or a judge of a county.
court or the court of general sessions shall be commenced in the appellate division
in the judicial department where the action, in the course of which the matter
sought to be enforced or restrained originated, is triable, unless a term of the
appellate division in that department is not in session, in which case the
proceeding may be commenced in the appellate division in an adjoining judicial
department;
21. New York courts have held that the Appellate Division has subject matter
jurisdiction over an action or Article 78 proceeding involving a justice ofthe County or Supreme
Court. See Nolan v. Luneen.61 N.Y.2d 788,789,473 N.Y.S.2d 388,389(1984); Matter of
Santorelli v. District Attomev of Westchester County. 252 A.D.2d 504,504-05,676 N.Y.S.2d
494,494-95(2d Dep't 1998); Baba v. Evans.213 A.D.2d 248,624 N.Y.S.2d 18 (1st Dep't
1995),app. dismissed.89 N.Y.2d 888,653 N.Y.S.2d 911 (1996); cert, denied sub. nom.. Baba v.
1133 Building Corp.. 520 U.S. 1254 117 S. Ct. 2416(1997); Herald Co. v. Rov. 107 A.D.2d 515,
518,487 N.Y.S.2d 435,437(4th Dep't), app. dismissed. 65 N.Y.2d 922, app. denied.65 N.Y.2d
610(1985)(" Thejurisdiction ofthis court [Appellate Division] is invoked pursuant to CPLR
506(b)(1) which directs that a proceeding against a Justice ofthe Supreme Court shall be
commenced in the Appellate Division. This provision concerns subject matterjurisdiction (see.
Matter of Nolan v Luneen.61 NY2d 788; CPLR 7804[b])"and it is nonwaivable.").
Conversely, ifthe petition in the Article 78 proceeding fails to name or assert any claims against
a Coimty or Supreme Courtjustice, that proceeding must be brought in the Supreme Court
against all the parties.
22. The statutory requirement should be enforced here. Petitioner Krichevsky brings
this Article 78 proceeding against the Family Courtjudges,support magistrates, and clerks here
in the Appellate Division, which is not permissible under CPLR 506(b). Accordingly,this
Court does notjurisdiction and the application should be denied and the proceeding dismissed in
its entirety.
C. This Proceeding Is Barred By The

Appiicable Statute Of Limitations
23. The petition in this proceeding should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 217 and
7804(f) because Petitioner Krichevsky failed to initiate this CPLR Article 78 proceeding within
the requisite statute oflimitations period.
24. CPLR 217 states that an Article 78 proceeding must be commenced within four
months after the order or decision sought to be reviewed became final or the refusal to perform
the duty believed to be mandated took place. CPLR 217(1); see Matter of Adventist Homes.
Inc. V. Bd. of Assessors ofthe Town of Livingston. 83 N.Y.2d 878,880,612 N.Y.S.2d 371,372-
73(1994); New York State Association of Counties v. Axelrod. 78 N.Y.2d 158, 165,573
N.Y.S.2d 25,29(1991); Matter of Village of Westburv v. Dent, ofTransportation. 75 N.Y.2d 62,
72,550 N.Y.S.2d 604,614(1989); Matter of Biondo v. New York State Div. ofParole.60
N.Y.2d 832, 834,470 N.Y.S.2d 130(1983); Matter of Silvestri. v Hubert. 106 A.D.3d 924,925-
8
26,965 N.Y.S.2d 185,186-87(2d Dep't 2013); Matter of Callwood v. Cabrera.49 A.D.3d
394,395,854 N.Y.S.2d 42,43(lst Dep't 2008); Matter ofJames T. Raooli v. Village ofRed
Hook.29 A.D.3d 1007,1008,815 N.Y.S.2d 722,723-24(2d Dep't 2006); Sumoter v. New York
City Hous. Auth.. 260 A.D.2d 176, 177,688 N.Y.S.2d 33,34(1st Dep't 1999); Washington v.
Alissa Kamoner Rudin.256 A.D.2d 178,682 N.Y.S.2d 166(1st Dep't 1998); Simmons v.
Popolizio. 160 A.D.2d 368,553 N.Y.S.2d 442(1st Dep't 1990); see also Siegel, NY Prac. 566
[2d ed 1991].
25. The Petition fails to specify the time frame that the alleged acts occurred. All claims
and allegations concerning the Family Court respondents, including thejudges and support
magistrates presiding over and rendering determinations involving the underlying child support
proceedings, occurred at the latest in 2015 and essentially have concluded because the child
entitled to receive financial support from Petitioner Krichevsky reached 21 years ofage in 2015,
the age ofemancipation pursuant to Family Court Act 413(a). The petition fails to establish
any action by the Family Court occurring within the last four months that may raise a cognizable
claim or cause of action.
26. Clearly, this Article 78 petition has not been timely conunenced pursuant to CPLR
217 and should be dismissed.
D. Petitioner Fails To State A Claim Or A Clear

Legal Right To the Relief Sought
27. Petitioner fails to establish a clear legal right to the reliefsought, including a right of
performance that is clear ofdoubt or controversy or the duty to act is premised upon specific
statutory authority.Âssociation ofSurrogate and Supreme Court Reporters v. Bartlett.40
N.Y.2d 571,574, 388 N.Y.S.2d 882,884(1976); Matter of Carpenter v. Citv ofTrov. 192
A.D.2d 920,921,597 N.Y.S.2d 203,204(3rd Dep't 1993); Matter of Rosen v. Brewster. 160
A.D.2d 946,554 N.Y.S.2d 667,668(2d Dep't 1990).
28. As detailed above, Petitioner Krichevsky fails to establish a legally cognizable claim
or cause action; this Court does not have subject matterjurisdiction for an Article 78 proceeding
involving Family Court judges, support magistrates, and clerks pursuant to CPLR 506(b); and
the proceeding is barred by the statute oflimitations pursuant to CPLR 217 because no order or
decision sought to be reviewed became final or the refusal to perform the duty believed to be
mandated took place within the last four months. Accordingly, the application should be denied
and the proceeding dismissed.
WHEREFORE, your deponent respectfully requests ajudgment denying the petition and
dismissing the proceeding in its entirety and for such further and other relief as this Court deems
just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York

March 23,2017
ERIC T.SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General ofthe
State of New York
Attomev for Familv Court Respondents
CHARLES F. SANDERS
Assistant Attorney General
120 Broadway,24"' Floor
New York, New York 10271
(212)416-8594/8610
10
STATE OF NEW YORK )
: ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)
CHARLES F. SANDERS,being duly sworn,deposes and says:
I am of Assistant Attorney General and ofcounsel to the Attorney General ofthe
State ofNew York,attorney for State Respondents. I am familiar with the facts ofthis
proceeding and make this verification pursuant to 3020(d)(2)ofthe Civil Practice Law and
Rules because respondents are officers ofthe State of New York.
I have read the foregoing Answer and Affirmation and am familiar with its
contents. The statements made therein are true to the best of my knowledge, and are based upon
the documents reviewed from the underlying Family Court proceedings and communications
with Unified Court System officials. As to those matters therein stated on information and
belief, 1 believe them to be true based upon the same review.
CHARLES FTSANDERS
Sworn to before me this

23rd day of March 2017
Jonathan Conley
Assistant Attorney Gener;
ofthe State ofNew York
11
EXHIBIT
A
k'
f 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, New
York, on the 2"^ day of April
2012.
PRESIDING:
HON. PAULA J. HEPNER

Acting Justice of the Supreme Court
In the Matter of a Proceeding

for Support under Article IV
of the Family Court Act,
DECISION AND ORDER
ELENA SVENSON,
Petitioner, (After filing of Objections)
- against
Docket Number F-28901-08/10AfiB
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY, Objection # 3 on Supp "A*
Objection # 4 on Supp "B"
Respondent.
N0TIC3B: YOUR WZLLFDL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY, AFTER

A COURT BEARING, RESULT IN YOUR COMMITMENT TO JAIL
FOR A TERM NOT TO EXCEED SIX MONTHS, FOR CONTEMPT OF
COURT.
NOTICE: PURSUANT TO 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL MUST

BE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY
APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS FBCM THE MAILING OF THE ORDER
TO THE APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF. THE COURT, OR 35 DAYS
AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR LAW GUARDIAN UPON THE
APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.
The parties have been embroiled in litigation in Kings
County Family Court for four years and have had a lengthy history
before the undersigned.^ The history of this case is as follows:
On February 3, 2010, Support Magistrate Fasone issued a Final
Order of Support and directed the Respondent to pay $2,045.00
monthly^ toward the support of the subject child, David Svenson
(d.o.b. 8/14/94), and set the arrears from the date of filing at
$31,599.42. The Respondent was directed to enroll the child in
his health insurance plan and the Support Magistrate authorized
reimbursement of Petitioner's counsel fees.
On April 22, 2010, Respondent filed Supplemental "A"
seeking a downward modification on the grounds that he lost his
job, could not afford the health insurance premium and was
disputing the amount of arrears owed. On June 21,.2010,
^ This is the sixth application before the undersigned. The first

objection was ^filed by the. Petitioner on August 18, 2009 to an interim order
of support. On October 9, 2009, Petitioner withdrew the Objection. The second
objection was filed by the Respondent on April 2, 2010 to the Elnal Otder of
Support issued by Support Magistrate Fasone on February 3, 2010. The
undersigned denied the Objection on June 2, 2010 based on procedural grounds
due to the untimely filing of the Objection. The third Objection was filed by
the Respondent on August 9, 2010 to the Support Magistrate's verbal refusal to
recuse himself. The Objection was denied on procedural grounds as the
Objection was not ripe for review. The fourth motion was filed by the
Respondent on July 5, 2011-and decided on October 18, 2011. An objection was
filed by Che Respondent on August 18, 2011 and was denied on procedural
grounds.
^ The Support Magistrate did not deviate from the full amount required
under the Child Support standards Act. The Petitioner's adjusted gross income
was determined to be $20,800.00 and the Respondent's adjusted gross income
$145,145.40. The combined parental income was determined to be $165,945.40 of
which the Petitioner's pro ra.ta share was calculated at 13% and the.
Respondent's pro rata share at 87%. Pursuant to Che Child Support Standards
Act, Che Support Magistrate determined the annual child support obligation for
the parties' child was 17% of their adjusted gross income or $22,100.00 for
the combined income up to $130,000.00. The Respondent's share of the first
$130,000.00 is $1,602.25 monthly. The Support Magistrate applied the
statutory percentage of 17% to the income over $130,000.00, which was
$35,945.40, The Respondent's pro rata share was $443.03 monthly. The
Respondent's share for the income below $130,000($l,602.25} when combined with
the Respondent's share for the income above $130,000.00, ($443.03), resulted
in a monthly order of $2045.28 for the Respondent.
Petitioner filed Supplemental "B" alleging that Respondent
violated the Order of Support and Respondent failed to maintain
the subject child on his health insurance. Subsequent motion
practice ensued.
On July 26, 2010, Respondent filed Supplemental C, an Order
to Show Cause for a Temporary Restraining Order to stay the

current Order of Support and for the entry of an Order of Support
in the amount of $315.90 per month based upon.his receipt of
unenployment benefits. On August 5, 2010, Support Magistrate
Fasone declined to sign the Order to Show Cause and dismissed
Supplemental "C on the grounds that the issuance of a tein)orary

restraining order was beyond the scope of his authority..
The case continued with multiple,appearance dates on August
12, 2010, November 18, 2010, March 16, 2011, April 13, .2011, June
1, 2011' and ultimately concluded on July 6, 2011. On Jtily 6,:

2011, the Support Magis.trate dismissed Supplemental "A,"
Respondent's downward modification petition, because the
Respondent "made it impossible to conduct any meaningful inquiry

into che totality of his financial circumstances" and entered a
money judgment on supplemental "B," Petitioner's violation
petition, in the amount of $21,916.34.
On July 5, 2011, one day prior to the last hearing date.
Respondent filed an "Objection, Notice of Motion to Dismiss and
The Order of Support remained in effect throughout the pendency of the

proceeding with the exception of che modification entered June l. 2011 on
Supplemental "A" to $298.00 monthly.
for Sununary Judgment* on Supplementals "A" and "B." No
answering papers were ever filed. The papers were recorded as an
Objection and sent to the undersigned for review. The "Objection,
Notice of Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment" essentially
argued the following:(I) The Final Order of Support entered on
February 25, 2010 is void and the sidasequent decision on the
Objection of the undersigned entered on June 2, 2010 is void;(2)
Supplemental "B" should be dismissed;(3) Respondent seeks an
award of costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney's fees;(4)
Respondent seeks leave to renew and reargue his recusal motion to
disqualify the Support Magistrate from his case;(5) Respondent
asserts he is entitled to Summary Judgment on Supplemental "E"
because no questions of law or fact exist;(6) Respondent seeks to
be relieved from the underlying order of support pursueint to
Civil Practice Law and Rules 5015(a) because of lack of
jurisdiction.
The Respondent's motion was mistitled' as an Objection*

although it was an omnibus motion and should have been heard by
Support Magistrate Fasone during the pendency of the hearing
instead of being referred to the undersigned. The undersigned
entertained the first item in the Respondent's motion in the
interest of judicial economy, which was denied on October 18,
2011, and referred all other matters in this omnibus motion to
* On August 13, 2011, the Respondent Ciled an actual ''Objection* to

Support Magistrate Faaone's final order entered on July 6, 2011, which was
denied on procedural grounds as it was late.
Support Magistrate Pasone for decision. To enable the Support
Magistrate to decide the omnibus motion in an orderly way, the

Court issued written decision dated October 18, 2011 directing
the Support Magistrate to clean up the record by setting aside

decisions on Supplementals "A" and "B" until the motion filed on
July 5, 2011 was heard, issue written decisions with findings of
facts on all motions on the appropriate dockets, and directed
that Supplemental "C" be re-filed as a motion under Supplemental

"A."
Further, the undersigned directed that oral argument on the

motion be heard before Support Magistrate Pasone on December 12,
2011. Bach party was to be given fifteen minutes to present their

oral argument. Petitioner and Responderit were dire.cted to submit
any documents for consideration to the -Support Magistrateten
days in advance of the hearing date. No adjournments of the
December 12, 2011 date should be granted except for extraordinary
circumstances. After determination on the motion, the. Support
Magistrate could then issue final orders on Supplementals "A" and

"B."
On December 12, 2011, both parties appeared. The Respondent
would not state his name for the record and would not address the
Court claiming he is never heard. He moved to the back of the

courtroom to sit in the observer's row claiming that the Support
Magistrate had no jurisdiction over him. Ultimately, he left the

courtroom. The Support Magistrate denied the Respondent's motion
finding that the Respondent had declined to participate in the
hearing and dismissed Supplementals "A" and "B* on the grounds
that the "respondent-father's consistent refusal to coherently
participate in any of the subsequent hearings on his petition
makes it impossible for the undersigned to determine whether
modification is appropriate given petitioner-mother's repeated
protestations that he owns/possesses other income producing
assets." The Support Magistrate determined that the Respondent
non-willfully failed to obey the court's order by refusing to
make all payments resulting in arrears.
Family Court Act [hereinafter cited as "FCA"J 439(a)
empowers Support Magistrates "to hear, determine and grant any
relief within the powers of the court" in proceedings properly
before them. FCA 439(e)- provides that the Support Magistrate's
determination "shall include findings of fact and a final Order."
The parties are permitted by the statute to submit "specific
written objections" to the order for "review" by a Family Court
judge within the time frames set forth in the statute. Pursuant
to FCA 439(e), "specific objections to such order may be filed
by either party with the court within thirty days after receipt

of the order in court or by personal service, or, if the
objecting party or parties did not receive the'order in court or
by personal service, thirty-five days after mailing of the order
to such party or parties." The Respondent's Objections, dated
January 20, 2012, were received and filed by the Court on January
23, 2012. By statute, the Petitioner had thirteen days to file a
written Rebuttal; no written Rebuttal was filed with the Court.
In Respondent's Objection, he argued that all of Support
Magistrate Fasone's orders should be void based upon "bias,
prejudice, and corruption"* and that the Support Magistrate did

not follow the undersigned's directives. Respondent states that
he did not get the decisions from Support Magistrate Fasone and
therefore, did not know what to argue on December 12, 2011 and
was y*not ready for argument."'
Upon full review of the record provided to the Court, the
Findings of Fact and Order issued by the Support Magistrate, and
the Objection filed by the Respondent, this Court' hereby denies
the Respondent's Objection on procedural grounds.
-The Orders,on Supplementals "A" and "B" were mailed on
December 15, 2011. Since the objection was filed on January 23,
2012,* more than thirty five days from the date of mailing, the
Objection is deemed untimely (Family Court Act 439(e)/ Russell
Attached to the Respondent's Objections is an affidavit of service

Indicating that on January 20,2012, Melli Prid, a person over the age of
eigbtran and not a party to the action, personally served a copy of the
Objections to the Petitioner. The affidavit was notarized on January 23, 2012.
* Michael Krichevsky, Affidavit in Support, January 20, 2012 ^ 15.
Michael Krichevsky, Affidavit in Support, January 20, 2012 1 16.
* The dace stamp on the objection states "2011 Jan 18 AM 9:00" and is
crossed out. underneath the date stamp, it states "Jan. 23 PM 4:34 PTP." PTP
are the initials of the Assistant Deputy Chief Clerk of the Support Division.
It is clear that the date stamp was an error as it states "2011" instead of
2012 cuid January 18 predates Che Respondent's completion of his Objection
(dated January 20, 20l2), his affidavit in support (dated January 20. 2012)
and his affidavit of service (notarized on January 23, 2012).
V Gittens, 81 AD3d 552 [2d Dept 2011]/ Sanabris v Medina, 69 AD3d
947 f2d Dept 2010]; Hodges v Hodges, 40 AD3d 639 (2d Dept 2007];
Mazzilli V Mazzilli, 17 AD3d 680 (2d Dept 2005];.Pedcne v Corpes,
24 AD3d 559 (2d Dept 2005]/ Herman v Herman, 11 AD3d 536 [2d Dept
2004]; Chambers v Chambers. 305 AD2d 672, 673 (2d Dept 2003];
Mayeri v Mayeri, 279.AD2d 473 (2d Dept 2001]; Werner v Werner.
130 AD2d 754 (2d Dept 1987]). Therefore, the Objection to the
Court's orders of December 13, 2012 are denied on procedural
grounds.
The Court is to notify the Petitioner, Respondent, SCU and

Support Magistrate Fasone of its decision.
B N\ T E R : \
'\1 , \
PAUIA J. "HEPNER, A'.J.S.C.
I-.C.A.SS 41.1. 416. 4.VXI-)
4-.SM-3 1 l/2tK)S
FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS
In the Matter of a Support Hroceeding File #: 142040
Docket#; F-28901-08
Elena Svenson,
Petitioner, CSMS#: NV05003T1
against
FINDINGS OF FACT
Michael Krichev.sky.
Respondent.
.John M.Fasone. being the Support Magistrate before whom the issues of support in the above-
entitled proceeding were a.s.signed for determination, makes the following findings of fact:
Elena Sveason tiled a petition on November 3,2008 seeking to establish support for the following:
Naillfi Date of Birth Social Securiiv u
David Svenson 8/14/1994 XXX-XX-I8I0
Elena Svenson and .Michael Krichevsky were never married to each other.
The following child resides with Elena Sveason: David Svcason.
Elena Svenson has submitted the following proof of income, expenses, and/or support of others-
rinancial statement and ta.x returns.
Michael Krichevsky has submitted the following proof of income, expenses, and/or support of
others: financial statement, pay stubs, tax returns, and W-2.
An itemization ofincome and deductions ofthe parents and calculation ofpro rata shares is annexed
as Appendix A.
The basic child support obligation for support of the following child is 52,350.90 iiibnthly:
tSfllUfi Date of Bttftl Social Sccuritv
David Sven.son 8/14/1994 XXX-XX-18I()
The basic payment of$2,350.90 monthly con.si.st.s ofS1.841.67. which is the payment computed for
the first $130,000 of the parties' combined Adjusted Gross Income, and 5509.23. which is 17% of
the parties' combined Adjusted Gross Income over $130.000.
The factor(s) used in calculating the basic payment for the Adjusted Gro,ss Income over $130.000
is/are:
The financial resources of the custodial and non-custodial parent, and those of the
I'age: 2
iJiJckci Nii; r-2Sri ON
-SM-2
child(ren);
M05 Zhl""" 1" "f ""1^ PPoa ohlisa,i,. i.,

*"= "f " PWU .pp
The non-custodial parties' pro rata share oKthp h-icu- r-hiM ... .-
inappropriate. "* PP"'^ obligation is neither unjust nor
Health insurance availability lor each party is as follows:
Michael Krichevaky: Health insane la available ,hgh an emplnyern, ntganiaalien.

Health insurance coverage is to be provided .is follows:
Page:3
Docket No:F-2890I-08
4^M-3
Michel pichwsky is directed to continue health insurance coverage under the current available
nllfcontains the followmg
This plan Sveiisonbenefits:
with contribution or premium
Dental,Medical, to beandpaidPrescription
Optical by MichaelDrag.
Krichevsky.
re^ndent-fether,while not an "illegal" partner in the law firm for which he

fort * "orethan normalemployer^ployeerelationship with his firm.Such
W.2Wageand
to's b^w^' " proceedings at his direction and outside ofthe normal course ofthe
non.married parties filed
1 !. Janed both petitioner-mother and the subject child as dependents-
T*^ n hfestyê. enjoyed by them during the course of
t^^ ^ the 2005Form 1040(federalincome
t complete,such feetdoessubtract from the documents reliabiUty
'robmittând unsigned.Orderto Show Cause filed on A^tT2009.^
ZLnlnTfeih ?T separation
ôrident-faAerpnortotheparties ^âsacouple and demonstrates
^ thepartiesbe lastsubstantial
filed^
disparity m actual eamings/eaming potentials. pamcssuosiannai
ûrt finds it appropriate,for the purpose ofthis calculation, to impute income to petitioner-
moAer to her most recent employment-i.e.in 2004as a clerical in a psychiatrist's
^ testimony in this regard entirely credible. As does the Court with
resides m her parents apartment rent-fiee and receives cash support firom her sister
'^dances-i.e. thatinshe
Germany.
prese^^^
Pf^'
real estate investments together, the80"8 actions
undersigned against
defers onedeteimination
to the another for partition oftheCourt.
ofSupreme various
Moreover,M the Court finds that respondent-fathcr's entire behavior in these proceedings has been
to delay and o evade any final determination ofhis obligations on their merits,both as to paternity
and ta to^d support, the undersigned authorizes reimbursement ofpetitioner-mother's counsel
fees mcurredm the prosecution ofthis matter. .avuuuaw
Dated: February 3,2010
bhn M.Fasone
Support Magistrate
I-.C A. 5S ll.l.4l(i.4.3.-lJ8.
4.W.441J.042-447.471;An.5-H -7 ll/JWH
Al a icnn of the Family Court of the

State of New York, held in and for
the County of Kings, at 330 Jay
Street. Brooklyn, NY 1 1201, on
February 3.2010
PRESENT: John M.Fasone, Support Maai.strate
In the Matter of a Support Proceeding #. j^2040
Elena Svenson,SSN:XXX-XX-8546, Docket #. F-28901-08
Petitioner. CSMS#; NV05003T1
Michael Krichevsky,SSN: XXX-XX-7181. ORDER OFSUPPORT

Respondent.
NOTICE: YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RFSin T
IN INCARCERATION FOR CRIMINAL NON-SUPPORT OR CONTEMPT
YOUR FAILURETO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULTSSUSPeSZof
YOUR DRIVER S UCENSE. STATE-ISSUED PROFKsfoNlL TlWD^r
BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES AND RECREATIONAl AND
SPORTING UCENSES AND PERMITS! AND IMPOSmON OF R^M OR
PERSONAL PROPERTY LIFm '"^-'>'l'UN OF RF.AL OR
SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THIS ORDER MAY BF Fll ED WI'IH
THISCOURTWrnilNSODAYSOFITIEDATETHEORDERWASRESD
IN COURTORBY PERSONALSERVICE.OR IFTHEORDER WAS RECEIVED
BY MAIU WITHIN 35 DAYS OF THE MAILING OF THE ORDeI
. "'I''''
alleging thatabove-nêd Petitioner
Michael Krichevsky having tiledwitha petition
is chargeable in this
the support of: Court on November 3 -m).
Date of Birth
David Svenson 8/14/1994
Michael Krichevsky having appeared before this Court to answer the netiti m u
advised by the Court of the right to counsel, and to .show why an order of support and other reJ^f
KHchevskyivii;::^:::^;;:^
The matter having duly come on to be heard before this Coun;
I,htanng
...rin. ?|?^' into thethereto,
the proofs and testimony olfered in relation facts andthecircumstances of the case and after
Coun finds that:
Michael Krichev.skyis the non-cu.stodial party, whoseproratashareoftheba-sicchild support

Page; 2 of S
Docket No; l--2X9()l-(>!<
4-7
obligation is 52.045.00 iiiuiuhly for the following child:

Date of Birth Social .Security U
David Svenson g/i4/1994 XXX-XX-1810
And the Court finds further that:
I he name,addrass and telephone number of Michael Krichev.sky's current employer are:

Telenhone
Wiitenstein & Associates 2502 86"* Street
Brooklyn, New York 11214
int"'hethereto,
hearing the proofs and testimony offered in relation facts and
it iscircumstances of the case and after
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that effective November m,nc pro tune 3. 2008 Michael
Krichevsky is chargeable with the support of the following person(s) and is posse.ssed ofsufficient
means and able to earn .such means to provide the payment of the sum $2,045.00 monthly to Elena
2010.1,T und lowal ihe support of Miuhaul Krichcky's uhildra,allocated aa follows:
iSim .Social SffUrily if Dateofnioh Allocatal Am,..,ni
children:
DavidSvcason XXX-XX-ISIO S/I4/I<I04 $2.(145.00 ntomhly
Total Child 5S..ppp- $2,045.00 monthly
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael Krichevsky pay additional e.xpen.ses as follows:
Payment Pavable/P.-ivk-,.
Unreimbursed Health Related 87% Direct/
Elena Svenson
shall mili'bv^^h
Miall be nude "for money order payable to and mailedthrough
by check to: NYStheChild
Suppon Collection
Support Unit
Processino
Center. TO Boa 15363 Albany, NY 12212-5363. The county natne and aeetL7f"^
matter must be included with the payment for identification purposes;
|T IS WRTHER ordered and adjudged that Michael Krichevsky is additionally
u-7"u i!
Michiicl .r .? pay or cuusc
Krichevsky to be paid theISn'lf 2, 2008 to February 15, 2010 and that
sum ot kSS1,599.42*
I'agc: 3 of5
DtK jtci No; F-2S90I-08
.mmaOilliy Srs?pp'''Sirta
n.-aidcmW aa mailig a.E.r:!::!^.":!!^"'.;"':
"""" ""
informmion:
numto;and name,addreaa and Klephone namben.f,he pJnil? pL^ '
And ,he Conn having deiermined U.a.,h= heaUh invamne.availahiliiy f,each pany i., a.
follows;
iilcnu Svcnson: Health insurance is not offerprl ihmiw.k .... i

Michael Krichevaky: Health insarance la available ihroagh m cmJ!iI^lr3^''Sion:
following dcpendenta aitiheb*wi^cdf2^2^^^î rtT^to
cnrollmunl restrictions as long as it remains av iii ihi.> in
"'"'d'"
""'hout regard to seasonal
which abail be faaned immediately by the Sappnn Collecttrinrp^n^ OT
teatais Health Inanranc. Pl.g
David Svenson Oxford Health Medical
Such coverage shall include all plans covering the health medi.- .i t..,. i .
prcscriptiondrugneedsofthcdependentsnaincdabovcandanyotherheald
or which the legally-responsible relative is eligible for the benSl!lJlr^
howevxT, that the gn)up health plan is not required to provide any tvw o^^.rl !'r'l "r
not otherwise provided under the group health plan e.xcept to thetelT "
requirements of Section 1.196(g-l) of Title 42 of the United Stated Cod
relaiivc(s) shall assign all insurance reimbursement payments foHie^lr^' ' ' 'J?""y-^'-"''P""=^'>'le
ibm,.,. h nthet any

child; ^ P'lynient ot any health insurance claim for the
otherpa'IyaldS^SSuirt
tennination orbeneni.s. change In the health insurance b^nc'm caXTr'nr'''"'''''''"'''"''"''
availability of existing or new benefits; "mcr or premium, or c.xtcm and
telatlvelTl'^tSa'rcdToStrhllTr-^^^^^^^^
presumptively liable for all health care expenses incurred on behairnnh 1 ve(s) will be
from the llrst date such dependent,.,, wlv^:':,
be,wt.s alter the issuance uf .such urder ure.secu,iuu dinteting the ajgutidu,:"t." ira"
C1 ' Page:4 of5
Docket No: F.28901-08
4-7
r- II ordered that a copy ofthis order be provided promptly by the Support

to Section 11 l.b(4-a)ofthe Social Services Law; SupportOriersestabuLlpui
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final Order ofSupport is entered at$2,045.00
monthly,payable to Elena Svenson via SCU,effective ttunepro tune November3,2008. The
^ February 15, 2010. Retro Is set at
ulL payable via SCU at its discretion. Michael Krichevsky is to re-enroU the
avaUable employment-based family health insurance plan
(MordX and he Is to reimburse Ms.Svenson directlyfor87%ofthesubjectchUd*s uncovered
medical expenses upon presentation ofproof dtereoL
Dated:February 4,2010 ENTER
YT
John M.Fasone^ Support Magistrate
NOTE: ^ BE ADJUSTED BY THE APPUCATION OF
than TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS AFTER THIS ORDER IS ISSUED,
LAST MODIFIED OR LAST ADJUSTED,UPON THE REQUEST OF ANY PARTY TO THE
ORDERORPURSUANTTOPARAGRAPH (2)BELOWWOl^SjCA^^
c5r PARTIES
COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT,SHALL HAVE WHO,IF135^
THIRTY-FIVE THEYDAYS
OBJECT TO THF
FROM THE
DATE OF MAILING TO SUHMTT A WRTITEN OBJECTION TO THE COURT INDICATED
COURTSHALL SCHEDULE A HEARING AT WHICHTHEPARTIES MAYBEPRESENTTO
OFFER EVIDENCE WHICH THE COURT WILL CONSIDER IN ADJUSTING THE rmr n
SUPPORTORDERmACCOWJANCEWnHraECHI^SSi^Â^
SJfSSSSSSAraSSSSSZSSSSSSSS
ALL PARTIES WILL RECEIVE NOTCE OF ADJUSnl^raSs
^ UONAS
ORDER CAN BE SENT, unit WITH ABY
REQUIRED CURRENT ADDRESS
SECTION TO WHICH
443 OF THE FAMn.VAN ADJUSTED
ootirt aot
^required
THE SUPPORT OBLIGATION AMOUNTbyCONTAINED
SECTION 443 OF THESHALL
THEREIN FAMILYBECOME
COURT ACT
DUF
AND OWING ONTHEDATE THEFmSTPAYMENTBD^âWlSS?m
AFTERTHEEFFECTIVEDATEOFTHEORDER REGARDLESS OFWHETHERORNOTTHE
r-,
\ Page:i of5
Docket No:F-28901-08
4-7
PARTY HAS RECEIVED A COPY OF THE ADJUSTED ORDER
Qiâi
T mailed on (specify dale(s) and to whom mailed!: FS 3 5 2010 P P
QPOrder P
T received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom giveni:
Order received J i ^ V
CO: Yonatan S Levoritz, Esq.
EXHIBIT
B
At a tenn of the Family Court ofthe
State ofNew York, held in and for
the County of Kings, at 330 Jay
Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, on July
6,2011
PRESENT; John M.Fasone,Support Magistrate

In the Matter ofa Support Proceeding File#: 142040
Docket#; F-28901-08/103
Elena Svenson,SSN: XXX-XX-8546,
Petitioner, CSMS #; NV05003T1
- against -
ORDER
Michael Krichevsky, SSN: XXX-XX-7181,
Respondent.
NOTICE: YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN

INCARCERATION FOR CRIMINAL NON-SUPPORT OR CONTEMPT. YOUR FAILURE TO
OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE
PROFESSIONAL.TRADE,BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES
AND RECREATIONAL AND SPORTING LICENSES AND PERMITS;AND IMPOSITION OF
REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY LIENS.
SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THIS ORDER MAY BE FILED WITH THIS COURT
WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED IN COURT OR BY
PERSONAL SERVICE,OR IF THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY MAIL, WITHIN 35 DAYS
OF THE MAILING OF THE ORDER.
.. . Money
discretion. ORDERED that Arrears
Judgment entered are setamount
in the at S53,515.76 payable at the Support Collection Unit's
of$21,916.34.
Dated; July 6,2011 ENTER
I^n Mi Fasone, Support Magistrate
Check applicable box:

Order mailed on (specify datefs) and to whom mailcdl;
Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom givcnj:.
F.C.A. 5 <139,460, Ait,3>B 4-14 09/1999
At a term ofthe Family Court of the

State ofNew York,held in and for
the County of Kings,at 330 Jay
Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201,on July
6,2011
PRESENT! John M.Fasone,Support Magistrate

In the Matter ofa Support Proceeding File #: 142040
Docket#: F-28901-08/1OB
Elena Svenson,
DOB;3/24/1958, ORDER
2620 Ocean Parkway, Apt. 3K ENTRY MONEY
Brooklyn,NY 11235, JUDGMENT
Petitioner,
- against -
Michael Kricbevsky,
DOB: 11/21/1955,
4221 Atlantic Ave.
Brooklyn, NY 11224,
Respondent

INCARCERATION FOR CRIMINAL NON-SUPPORT OR CONTEMPT. YOUR FAILURE TO
OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE,
STATE-ISSUED PROFESSIONAL,TRADE,BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES
AND RECREATIONAL AND SPORTING LICENSES AND PERMITS;AND IMPOSITION OF
Ati application having been made by Elena Svenson for an order directing the entry of
judgment in thesum of$21,916.34,that being the amount ofarrears having accrued because ofnon
payment by Michael Krichevsky ofsums directed to be paid by an order dated February 3,2010,of
Kings County Family Court together with costs and disbursements and Michael Krichcvsky's last
known address is 4221 Atlantic Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11224.
The matter having duly come on to be heard before this court;
NOW,after examination and inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case and alter
hearing the proofs and testimony offered in relation thereto; and the defaulting party not having
shown good cause for failure to make application forrelieffrom thejudgment or orderdirecting such
payment prior to accrual ofsuch arrears; it is therefore
ADJUDGED that Michael Krichevsky failed to obey the Order of this Court in that
Michael Krichevsky failed to pay the sum ofS53,515.76, which amount the Court finds to be
the arrears due and owing under said Order; and it is
ORDERED that the judgment be entered in favor of Elena Svenson against Michael
Page:2 uf2
Docket No: F-2890l-08/t0B
4-14
Kiichevsky in the amount of S21,916.34; and it is further
ORDERED that a certified copy ofsaid judgment may be filed in the county cleric's office
m accordance with Section 460 ofthe Family Court Act.
SPECIFiC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THIS ORDER MAY BE FILED WITH

THIS COURT WITHIN 30DAYS OFTHE DATETHE ORDER WAS RECEIVED
IN COURTORBY PERSONALSERVICE,OR IFTHE ORDER WAS RECEIVED
BY MAIL,WITHIN 35 DAYS OF THE MAILING OF THE ORDER.
Dated: July 6,2011 ENTER
.^n iw. Fasone,Support Magistrate
Cheek applicable box:

Q Order mailed on (specify date(s) and to whom mailed);
Order received in coun on [specify daie(s) and to whom given):
EXHIBIT
C
CITY OF NEW YORK
KINGS COUNTY
330 Jay Street
Brooklyn, New York 11201
HON.JEANETTE RUIZ Natasha McDougall, Esq.

Supervi.sin}> Judge Micheie Rubin, Esq.
Cmirl .\tli>rii(*yH lo Ruiz
Mr. Michiiei Krichcvskv
4221 .\tlniitic .\ venue
Brooklyn, N'S' 11224
June 24, 2014

Re: Docket # F 2yol/l)S
Dear Mr. Krichev.sky,
Your letters to the I Ion. Edwina Richardson-Mcndelson, Administrative Judge of New York City Family Court
and t.> the I Ion.Jeanctte Ruiz,Supcn ising Judge of Kings County Family Court, iiavc been forwarded to me
for a reply as a Judge may nor read or rc.spond to communications.
I apologize for the delay in rcsponiluig to jour letters; my notes indicated that your letters had already been
answered.
In your letters you complain about the m:mner in which your case was handled by Support Magistrate John
1-a.sone and you rec|uest the court's intervention..Mthough Judge Ruiz, is Supervising Judge she is ethically
prohibited from interfering with proceedings before another Judge, Support Magistrate or Referee.
Ailditionally. please note that Family flourt is a court of record and all requests for relief must be properly filed
and serv ed pursuant to the Family Court .\ct and the Cavil I'racticc Law and Rules. Hie court cannot eiuettam
any application submitted by letter.
II you disagree wub the final decision of the Support Magistrate, your recourse is the filing of an objection
within the statutory time frame. Objections are decided by a Family CourtJudge. If ytiu disagree with the
decision of the Family f:ourtJudge, voiir recourse is ro file an appeal in the .Appellate Division, Second
rJeparrment. If the time frame within which to file an objection or appeal has elapsed, y.iu may wish to discuss
jour concerns with an attorney, who would be in the best position to explain Family Court proceedings to you
advise ynu of your rights, explain what, if.my, remedies may be available to you,and make any appropriate'
mouons and applications on j'our behalf. If you cannot afford to hire an atromey, the Family Court Vuluiitecr
Attorney Program may he able ro assisr you or Legal Information for Families l oday (LlFTJ can provide vou
helpful information. Both programs have locations in the Kings County Family Court courthouse. You may
seek their assistance without an appointment. The clerk's office or the self-represented unit can provide vou
with the current operating hours of boih pnsgrams.
Support Magistrates are subject to review cvcrj- year and yriur complainr about the manner in which your case
was handled by Support .Magistrate Fastuie will be considered as part of that review.
live Family Ciiuirt is dedicated t<. serv iiig the many litigants who appear here with the utmost dignity and
ctficiciicv.
Vciy truly vours,
Giurt .Attorney to Plon.Jeanettc Ruiz

SupervLsing Judge. Kings County Family (..'oiirt
EXHIBIT
D
n n

COUNTY OF KINGS
In the Matter ofa Proceeding for Support

under Article 4 of die Family Court Act
ELENA SVENSON, Docket No.F-28901/08F

Petitioner FUeM42040
FINDINGS OF FACT
-against- and DECISION
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
Respondent
Michael R.Milsap,
Support Magistrate
Petitioner filed the instant Supplemental F Petition on 7/19/2013 stating respondent had
failed to pay an order ofchild support since January 2013. The ordra ofsupport being
complained about is $2,04S/month for the support ofthe David Svenson, bom on 8/14/1994. On
a prior violation petition the court determined on 7/6/2011 that respondent owed arrears to
petitioner and gave her a moneyjudgmentfor $21,916.34.
It is important to note that all prior petitions and proceedings had been had in Part 27
before Magistrate Fasone. However on 3/21/2014 he recused himgulfand the case was
transferred to this Magistrate. On 2/2S/2014,the court had received a report firom the Support
Collection Unit(SCU)that respondent's arrears owing to petitioner,including prior arrears,
moneyjudgment and interest, were $108,616.73. Magistrate Fasone ordered respondent to pay
the ongoing order ofsupport and an additional amount ofSI,022.50 toward the stated arrears
effective 3/15/2014, with said payments to be paid through SCU. Additionally,respondent was
O n
ordered to provide to the Court transcripts ofhis 2011,2012 and 2013 personal income tax
returns and a Financial Disclosure. The case was to be adjoumed to 4/2/2014, however on
3/20/2014, Magistrate Fasone issued Findings of.Fact and an Order recusing himselffiom any
further involvement in the parties' Family Court litigation and declared a mistrial as to the
current petition.
On 6/23/2014,this matter was scheduled before this Part(24)pursuant to re-assignment

and although petitioner failed to appear,she had contacted the court and requested an
adjournment. Respondent appeared and objected to any adjournment and the court denied his
request The court had contacted and arranged for an 18b attomey to be available for possible
assignment to respondent Respondent stated he was unemployed and without any income(as
stated by him because of hardship caused by the court's orders ofsupport)and although he did
not have private counsel he irutially rejected the court's offer ofassignment ofcounsel. The
court advised respondent ofthe importance ofhaving competent legal representation due to the
issue ofpossible incarceration as a result ofany wUlfulnras finding against him. Respondent
reluctantly agreed and 18b Attomey Eli Yeager was assigned to represent respondent and the
matter was adjoumed to 9/30/2014.
Before the case was called on 9/30/2014,respondent informed court staffthat he was not
going to be represented by Attomey Eli Yeager and had his own representative he wanted to
appear with and for him. The court inquired and was informed that respondent's representative
was not a licenced attomey in the State ofNew York(and there was no indication he was in fact
an attomey). On the record, the court declined respondent's request to have a non-attorney
^ o
represent him or participate in these proceedings. Mr. Yeager informed the court that he haH
previously met with and had a lengthy conversation with respondent who infiiimed Mr. Yeager
that he declined to have Mr. Yeager represent him. Respondent stated that Mr. Yeager would not
agree to take up all the issues he wanted to raise and address as to the injustices he had feced
regarding the past actions ofthis court Respondent went on to say he would only accept Mr.
Yeager's representation if Mr. Yeager would enter into a specific contract with him which Mr.
Yeager declined to do. The court asked ifrespondent wanted an adjournment to obtain his own
attomey and advised respondent ofthe seriousness ofthese matters and again stated the
importance that he had competent legal counsel due to petitioner's requestthat he be found in
willful contempt. However, respondent was adamant in not having an attomey he believed would
be closely aligned with the court system which he refened to as a Corporation.
Respondent thereafter proceeded without counsel when the court again denied his request to have
a non-attorney represent him.
The issue before the court is a narrow one as presented by the instant petition,that being
whether respondent has violated an order ofthis court and ifso, what remedy may be imposed
against him pursuant to FCA 454. The court has received a report ftom SCU dated 9/26/2014
prepared on 9/25/2014 and in said report as to the accrual ofsiqiport since July 2011,respondent's
ciurent anears including prior airears, moneyjudgment and interest, total $124,079.38. The
report detailed SCU's collection primary through income execution fiom respondent's receipt of
unemployment benefits fi'om July 2011 through December 2012 and a property execution in
January 2014 making total collection at $15,416.78 with no payments or collections since
O n
1/22/2013. Petitioner did not dispute SCU's report and denied receiving any direct payments
from respondent since July 2011. Respondent refused to look at or comment on the report from
SCU. Petitioner stated she believed respondent was in willful violation ofthe order ofsupport in
that she believed respondent owned several real properties that could be used to satisfy all or part
ofthe support obligation. When asked by the court ifhe owned any properties, respondent
declined to answer saying he did not want to incriminate Himself.
The law is well defined and settled regarding proceedings as to a violation ofan order of
support Pursuant to FCA4S4,this court is givoi the authorify to detomine ifthere has been a
violation ofa court order and the remedy for such is at a minimum a mon^judgment for the
amount owed. FCA 454-2(a). In addition to a moneyJudgment,ifthe court finds that the
violation is willful, the court may"commit the respondent to jail for a term not to exceed six
months." FCA 454-3(a). The evidence ofrespondent's Mlure to pay the order ofsupport is
shown in the report from SCU(which is in evidence as the court's exhibit). Where the court has
evidence offailure to pay court ordered support it would constitute piima facie evidence ofa
willful violation that could lead to civil contempt Restivo v. Cincu. 1 lA.D.3rd 621,782
N.Y.S.2d 867(2""Dept 2004);Ztdlov.Hom. 10 A.D.3d 614,782 N.Y.S.2d 677(2"'Dept 2004).

Where the proofoffrdlure to pay is uncontradicted it would support a prima &cie finding ofa
willful violation and the burden would then shift to respondent to offer some credible evidence of
his inability to make the required payments. Poddos v. Iris. 288 A.D.2d 719,732 N.Y.S.2d 729
(3"" Dept. 2001);Marrav. Hernandez. 102 A.D.3d 699(2"* Dept 2013).
As stated, respondent failed to even review or comment on the report from SCU as to his
o o
payments or whether he had the ability to pay. Instead,respondent had filed a Motion seeking to
vacate the underlying orders that had been entered against him stating th^r were"VOID,&aud
upon the court,contrary to the weight ofthe evidence". Respondent's numerous objections to
various orders 1^ the prior Magistrate were ultimately denied and there is no indication that
respondent's appeal to the Appellate Division has lead to any reversal ofthe instant order.
Basically,respondent's defense,ifit may be called such is to attack the authority ofnot
only this court but the OfBce ofCourt Administration and the integrity ofthis Magistrate and
whether he has bei &irly treated in the lengthy litigation between the parties over the years.
Respondent constantly referred to this court, OCA and diis Magistrate as being a part ofa
corporation whose sole purpose is to deprive him ofhis assets and to enrich the corporation.
Respondent instead ofaddressing the question as to whether he had the ability to pay the order of
support since the last order and moneyjudgment in July 2011,demanded ofthe Magistrate to
answer his prepared questions unrelated to the petition as ifhe was conducting a deposition and
the Magistrate was an unsworn witness(as stated by respondent). His questions as to whether the
Magistrate had a coiitract with him, had taken an oath or was bonded and whether this court's
existence violated the U.S. Constitution was totally outside ofthe narrow issue before this court
Part at present. This Magistrate at this moment in time is unable to undo the prior orders of
support issued against respondent and upheld on objections. Additionally,there is no petition
before the court filed by respondent seeking to modify the underlying order ofsupport and even it
there was,depending on the filing date ofsuch petition, it would have little impact as to the
determination ofcurrent arrears stated to be owed. There was no offer or attempt to offer
n o
evidence from respondent of his income,resourees or ability to pay. lEven though the report by
SCU indicated that respondent had received unemployment benefits up to December 2013,
re^ndent offered no testimony or evidence as to how he has supported himselfsince then or that
he was seeking to obtain employment or that he could or would pay any amount ofsupport absent
a garnishment notice by SCU.
Given the testimony ofpetitioner and the report by the Support Collection Unit and
respondent's feilure to offer any evidence to rebut such,the court finds that reqxmdent is in
willful violation ofthe court's order ofsupport In lieu ofa present recommendation that
respondent be incarcerated for his willful contempt,respondent shall be ordered to pay no less
than $10,000 by the next court date to piirge himselfofthe court's finding of willfulness. In the
event respondent fails to do so,this matter may be referred to ajudge in this court with a
reconunendation for respondent's incarceration pursuant to FCA 4S4-3(a).
This matter is adjourned to Tuesday,December 2,2014 at 11 a.ni. in Part 24. The court
is to notify the parties.
IoUh
1' MiGHAEt R.MILSAP
Support Magistrate
F.C.A.439,460,Ait.S-B 4-1409/1999
At a teim ofthe Fami!ly Court ofthe

State ofNew York, leld in and for
the County ofKingi,at 330 Jay
Street, Brooklyn,N(11201,on
September 30,2014
PRESENT; Michael R. Milsap, Support Magistrate

Docket#: F-21901-08/13F
Elena Svenson,
DOB:3/24/1958, OR)R
2620 Ocean Parkway,Apt 3-K ENTRY MONEY
Brooklyn,NY 11235, JUDC MENT
Petitioner,
.against-
Michael KrichevslQr,
DOB: 11/21/1955,
4221 Atlantic Ave.
Brooklyn,NY 11224,
Respondent
NOTICE: YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER Nl^Y RESULT IN

INCARCERATIONFOR CRIMINAL NON-SUPPORT OR CONTEMPT. Y< iURFAILURETO
OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF YOUR DR VER'S LICENSE,
STATE-ISSUED PROFESSIONAL,TRADE,BUSINESS AND OCCUPAT ONAL UCENSES
AND RECREATIONAL AND SPORTING LICENSESANDPERMITS;ANÎMPOSITION OF
An {q>plication having been made by Elena Svenson for an order diiBciting the entry of
judgment in the sum of$124,079.38, that being the amoimt of aizears having accrued because of
non-payment by Michael Krichevsky ofsums directed to be paid by an order d^<:ed July 6,2011,of
Kings County Family Court together with costs and disbursements and Michael1 Krichevsky's last
known address is 4221 Atlantic Ave.,Brooklyn,NY 11224.
The matter having duly come on to be heard before this court;
NOW,after examination and inqiury into the &cts and circumstances < ifthe case and after
hearing the proo& and testimony offered in relation thereto; and the defaultijiiig party not having
shown good causeforfailureto make application forrelieffiom thejudgmentor order directing such
payment prior to accrual ofsuch arrears; it is therefore
Page:2of2
Docket No:F-28901-08/13F
4-14
ADJUDGED that Michael Krichevsky failed to obey the Order of this

Court in that Michael Krichevsky failed to pay the sum of$124,07938, which
amountthe Courtfinds to be the arrears due and owing under s:did Order; and
it IS
ORDERED that thejudgment.be entered in favor ofElenalSvenson,2620

Ocean Parkway,Apt.3-K,Brooklyn,NY 11235,against MichaeijKrichevsky in
the amount of$124,07938; and it is further
Prior moneyjudgmentdated 07/06/2011 is vacated and repijaced by instant

money judgment.
ORDERED that a certified copy of said judgment may be filed in the

county clerk's office in accordance with Section 460 of the Fam ly Court Act
SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO TfflS ORDER MAY BE FIlED WITH

THISCOURT WITHIN30DAYS OFTHEDATETHEORDER WASIECEIVED
IN COURT ORBYPERSONALSERVICE,ORIFTHE ORDER WASIECEIVED
BY MAIL,WITHIN 35 DAYS OF THE MAILING OF THE ORDER,
Dated: October 6,2014 ENTER
MichaeFR. Milsap,Support Inagi itrate

Order mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed]:
Order received in court on (specify date(s) and to whom given]:.
t
} T
EXHIBIT
E
...0 n
F.C.A.5454,846-a,1072 GFII 8/2010
At a term ofthe Family Court ofthe

State ofNew York,held in and for
the County ofKings,at 330 Jay
Street, Btooklyh, 11201,on
December 2,2014
PRESENT! Hon. William Franc Perrv
Docket#: F-28901-08/13F
Elena Svenson
Petitioner, CSMS#: NV05003T]
- against-
ORDER OF INTERMITTENT
Michael Krichevsky SENTENCE COMMITMENT
Respondent
A petition having been filed in this Courton July 19,2013 alleging that Michael Kiichevslty hasfailed
to ob^ an ordo:ofthis Court datoiJuly 6,2011,and
An ordo* having been made dated December 2,2014,adjudging Respondent to be in willful violation
ofsaid order;
it is thoeibre,
ORDERED that Respondent be and hoebyis committed to NYC DepartmentofCorrectionsfor aterm

of6 months from the beginning ofsaid con&ement unless sooner diwharged accor^g to law or until
the purge amountof$10,000.00 CASH OR CERTIFIED CHECK TO BEPOSTED FOR RELEASE TO
BE DEPOSITED WITH THE SUPPORT COLLECTION UNTTUNDER
CSM # NV05003T1 FOR FUTURE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT..
NOW,THEREFORE,WECOMMAND YOU,NYC DepartmentofCorrections whoein Respondent

may be found,that you take the body ofRe^ndent and wely keep in close custody in the Jail ofthe
above-named county for a period of6 months.
Commencing 1/2/2015 - Weekends, Friday 7 pm until Monday 7am,and ending 7/2/1S.
PURSUANTTOSECTION 1113OFTHEFAMILYCOURTACT,AN APPEALFROM THIS ORDER
MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN 30DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT
35 DAYS FROM THEDATE OF MAILING OFTHE ORDER TO APPELLANTBY THE CLERK OF
COURT,OR 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD
UPON THE APPELLANT,WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.
Dated: December 2,2014 ENTER
Hon. William Franc Peny

n
FINDDJGSOFFACT
ELENA SVENSON
MICHAEL\
KRICHEVSKY Docket No. F-28901-08/13F
#142040
This matter is before the court regarding the question as to respondent being found to be
m willful contempt ofthe court's order ofsupport. Both parties have speared before the court
and both are without counsel. Petitioner waives counsel and respondent does request time for
counsel and states he is withoutthe funds to afford counsel and states no attom^ will represent
him.
Petitionw had filed a violation petition on 7/19/2013 allegiog respondent had not
complied with the court's order ofsiqiport of$2,045/mohth for the subject child. On 2/25/2014,
the court found that respondent owed $108,616.73 in support arrears and respondent was ordered
to pay an additional amount of$1,022.50 toward his arrears in addition to the ongoing order; On
10/3/2014 the court issued written Findings ofFact and Decision finding respondent owed child
supjport arrears of $124,079.38. In that respondent had &iled to meet his court ordered
obligation, respondent was found to be in willfiil contempt and ordered to pay $10,000 by today's
court date to purge himselfofcontempt or face the possibility ofincarceration.
^ cotirt hns received a report firom the Support Collection Unit indicating respondent
has failed to p^the purge amount and has made no payment ofsupport since 10/15/2014.
Respondent refuses to answer the court's question as to vdiether any payments were made to
SCU since the last court date contrary to the report from the Support Collection Unit and
petitioner states she has received no payments. Accordingly, based on tire courts Findings and
Decision of 10/2/2014 and respondent's failure to purge himselfofthe court's finding of
willfulness,this matter is referred to Part 14 with a recommendation that respondent be
incarcerated pursuant to FCA 454-3(a).
DATED
MICHAEL R.MILSAP
Support Magistrate
EXHIBIT
F
At a Term ofthe Family Court ofthe State
ofNew York, held in and for the County of
Kings at 330 Jay Stree^ Brooklyn,
New York on the 8* day ofJanuary,2015
PRESENT:
HORDEANKUSAKARR
J.F.C.
/Pi/ôA
M Ae Matter ofa Proceeding for Siqjport under
Article4 ofthe Famify Court Act,
File No; 142040
DIeiui Svenson,
Docket No.F-28901-08/13F
Petitioner,
-against- DECISION AND ORDER
Michad Krichevslcy, After Filing ofObjections
Respondent

INCARCERATION FOR CRIMINAL NON-SUPPORT OR CONTEMPT.
YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY TmS ORDER MAY RESULT IN
SUSPENSION OF YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE,STATE-ISSUED
PROFESSIONAL TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS AND IMPOSITION
OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY LIENS.
DEANKUSAKABE,J.:
Respondent, Michael Krichevsky,objects to the determination ofSupport Magistrate

Michael Milsap entered on October 3,2014, wherein Respondent was found to be in willful
$124,079.38. The Support Magistrate also recommended that Respondent be incarcerated for
his willful violation Ifhe did not pay $10,000.00 by December 2,2014. Respondent argues that
the Support Magistrate erred because the underlying support order is void and there is no
contemptinresistingai.uiilawfiiJvoidoider. Respondent further argues that there' was no
lawful hearing, but rather an attempt by the Support Magistrate to forcefuUy trick Respondent
irto arguing the merits ofthe matter. Respondent also argues that the Support Magistrate did
not have subject matterJurisdiction to hear the support violation petition,and Respondent never
provided written consent to have a support magistrate preside over the matter. Finally,
Respondent argues that a support magistrate cannot adjudicate child support matters when an
affirmative defense ofvisitation is raised. Petitioner,Elena Svenson,did not file a rebuttal.
Afterreview arul consideration ofthe record,including listening to the mechanical
recording ofthe proceeding. Respondent's objection is denied.
The issues raised by Respondent in his objection are not reviewable. Family Court Act
439(e)provides that"a party filing objections shall serve a copy ofsuch objections upon the
opposmg i^...proofofservice upon the opposing party shaU be filed with the court at the time
offiling ofobjections." In the Instant matter,there is no affidavit ofservice attwhed to
Respondent's objection. Since Respondent provides no proofofservice ofhis objection on
Petitioner, Respondent failed to fulfill a condition precedent to filing timely written objections to
the Support Magistrate's order and thus waived his rights to review.of her objection. See
Lawrence v. Bemier, 100 A.D.3d 634,953 N.Y.S.2d 270(2d Dept 2012); Chukwuogo v.
Ckukwuogo,46 A.D.3d 558,846 N.Y.S.2d 639(2d Dept.2007); Rinaldi v. Rinaidi,239 A.D.2d
506,657 N.Y.S.2d 443(2d Dept 1997).
ThiscomtitiileatlKdecisionaiulorderoftheCouit Notiflr paries,counsel and the
Support Ma^stiate.
Dated: New York, New Yoric

January 8,2015 ENTER:
(/
Hon. Dban Kusakabe
Judge ofFamily Court
PURSUANT TO 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT,AN APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN

WmnN THIRTY(30)DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANTIN COURT
oSk OFCo^n't ^ APPEtLAOT'
PAMV(Sr5^ SERVICE
PARTY OR LAW GUARDIAN UPON THE APPELLANT,WHICHEVER BY A
IS EARLIEST.
EXHIBIT
G
5
" rn
^ m
"" S 'V'* O
1 vf 1 It J
S ce
3 01
v P B
< s I Z a-
g J >"
SB > M
St-
ft

_ o ^ Si . 4
5 Sl-3 g|
u- 'SO
| *^|
l > I Qs
1^ (0
I" o
>
X ufcy ^
UJ
Ppw A^miM Ffwn(Qhsck one only);
AmafwU4 Oocim Octannimtian
Order
AmwiM JiMtgfflsnt Q Rmflng Order ft JudgmaiK
. Raaattlad Ordar
AmendBd Ordar q interiocutofv Oacroe Partial Decrao
Ruffino
Oadsien q Imartocutoty JudSmant g Other (spacify);
Raaattled Oacraa
Oacraa QJudgmem
g Raaattlad Judginant
FAMiy c 0 u.e.j County; /g^ >6^ ^ S"
BW" '.IV/X" Entered;
Jud|d(namotnfulth M
lila.Na!<3_>0^Xy-/>'
Stage intarlocutofy ^Rnel Q Poet-Flnel Trial; Yae tit Mb If Yea; P Jury NorvJury
:.-"rrj;ss>=3
Centmencod by; Order to Show Caueo jlWotHôfPetltlBn G VWt of Haheae Conwt Ipato Rted; 7^^^
StatutoauthertibnooiBineoceinent of praeaodfnt in tfto Amolttto PMaiffn
County
Judge (mine in fun)
Order of Tranafer Date:
Ceurt;
County:
Judge (nanw in fulQ;
Dated:
Anwwit: It >n *0^1 ia frem a morwy Judgment, apacHy the amount awarded. K /? . /Tf <>! R
Spedfy the la^ prep^ to be reteed en the apwal. pnKewfinfc.eWiKAlefS&iAB704 review.
orfc/uaiT t i^n.AA. L^V-TvP /t. .1?^ ^ ^f atudt c<?

L<;
f" /if a/ ^
ûJLm -lWfc===a-.
Paper Appealed From (check one only);
O Amended Decree
Oeiermination 'J Order
Amended Judgment Cl Resettled Order
U Finding Order & Judgment
Amended Order U Ruling
Interlocutory Decree D Partlel Decree
^êcision Q Interlocutory Judgment
Other (specify):
Q Resettled Oecrea
U Decree
^Cjudsment U Resettled Judgmeni
Court: P/} Mliy CX>Ufi^ County: 5
Dated: /'
Entered: MhUB-Q /
zw
Interlocutory
covered by "the annex'i^ntltice'S'iSpoal'llJiinS p'^r^w^8?"'a

.Number(s) of any prior, pending, unperfected appeals:
Yei^ "n""
s? Q Yes Q No. Set forth the Appellate Division Cause
Commenced by. Order to Shoev Cause îNotico of Petition Q Wnt of Hebee. Corpus Date Filed: 7/5 / 3
Statute authorizing commencement of proceeding in the Appellate Dhiisi^ 1
'I'-. iMi ii 1,; ct'Li! }(;i)
1 iûurc:
County:
1 Judge (imme in full);
Order of Tranefar Data:
y- l..\ l'.:,-I.' Omi.W I
Court:
County:
1 Judge (name in fuH): Dated:
OescHptlon: If an appeal, briefly describe the oaiMir .

CPLB ynriiirî i. ^ u'"""" or oenieo. it an original proci
the eiârtyt^r to be revletye^ ' ^ C i!">i <'scn'>e the nature of
|5>^
/C c-cTdfc^ eLl
It: 1^0^% yAS\.cUû.>L*^ a.t^^ SUA
fh-o ,aJ B! n
uJtitC^Pl
Amount:
Issues: " '"""I' P"V the amount awarded.
I peÔwÔc.ôt^''
juv JL \ Y^fpog<r
A j- o-iLAM^ft to <tod*r*c^ci^
/^JiSAi^ CeP iôO-s.C''^^ ^ COt^fh-
M.vd^<r
leK oJct
MA.4Cc^tut>e^ VkLZs^
ku-ij p^-6ritcbn
U/t
Issues Continued:
j. V. r is ^t<V<
^ -eic-t^ -^s ê>
y(.rtf^ 2.00^^/ t^f cpi^^ y^,
trcO; W fer.fi; ^
rn;;iiio!]
îTthe'toj^rt*
nv. "'" lem is to fiiid fei a ereeeeiiLl'Îlj?' " "''n^MI. ine iiiiaiviiM '*H>'tV plsWIt,. thee-party
Party Name
Original Status
J^t Lt/
*ho1û4^
^ uct-^L^
k<-%nfouotr^
10
11
U/jl<r ot^zsf
Attorney Infonnatio'i
erevided.
I u.v.^. ... p.,.^---,-;:: mitlwd -fto *r T"H 1*^''"'*" ' hi'*". i bo* J
N>^/RrmName: fl/U ^t.olu
Address; V2,V Af/J^T^^ 4tô ^-
State: // y Zip: //22.^ Telephone No.7/8-687-P t.i
j Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government )|^ProSe Pro Mac ^7
Party or Parties Represented t, tnh p.iiy nun.b.,i ^cv, :
I Attorney/Rrm Name:
I Address:
City:
State; Zip: Teiephone No.;
Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government
Pro Se Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (w. rê. >,ev nombi.i eon, uw.
I Attorney/Rrm Name:
I Address:
City:
State:
Attorney Type: Q Retained Q Assigned Government GProSeTelephone No.:
Pro Hac Vice
I Party or Parties Represented i<M remi prtv numhwii from aiiit bo riom Foim ci
I Attorney/Rrm Name: ^
Address: ~
City:
State:
Telephone No.:
Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government p,o
Pro Hac Vice
I Party or Parties Represented tm tonh pwymimbwui fram wbiboworinwi fowi o;
[Attorney/Firm Name:
Address:
City:
State;
Telephone No.
l^tomey Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented rw rortn piny numm.ui ftcm nm itny, or from Foim ci:
I Attorney/Firm Name:
I Address:
City:
State: Zip: Teleph one No.
I Attorney Type: Q Retained Assigned Government Pro Se
Pro Hac Vice
|Party or Parties Represented
I this fitîs flUMataSEBs. USt Wfiwv (t) ife^
9^ rt v^
I la.dr
CMi
EXHIBIT
H
GFi5 8/2010
18
At a term */r the Family Court ofthe
State ofNew York, held in and for
the County of Kings,at 330 Jay
Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201,on June
19,2015
PRESENT; Hon. Maria Arias

In the Matter ofa Family OfTense Proceeding File#: 142040
Docket#: O-20755-14
Michael Krichevsky,
Petitioner, ORDER ON MOTION #: 1
- against -
Elena Svenson,
Respondent.
A motion having been filed with this Court on November 19,2014,requesting an order on
a Petitioner filing a motion to proceed as a poor person and a Judge ofthis Court upon examining
the motion papers and supporting affidavits and hearing testimony in relation thereto and no one
having appeared,
ORDERED that the motion of Michael Krichevsky is denied.

The Court is denying Petitioner's Motion for poor person's relief based on the fact that the
Petitioner, Michael Knchevesky,did not provide any financial information documenting how he is
cuTOiitly supporting himself. While the Petitioner argues that he no longer is able to work at his
priorjob due to his various medical issues, he does not provide any documentation of his current
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 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 ATTORNEY FOR TTIE
CHILD UPON THE APPELLANT,WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.
Dated: June 19,2015 ENTER
Hon. Maria Arias
Cbutfappllcable box:
ikdh APJ.
UTOrder mailed on [specify date(s)and to whom mailed]
Order received in court on [specify datefs) and to whom given]; [
EXHIBIT
I
GF16 08/2010
At a tenn ofthe Family Coutt ofthe

State ofNew YoiIe, held in and for
the Coun^ ofKings,at 330 Jay
Street, Brooklyn,NY 11201,on
October S,2015
PRESENT: Hon. Maria Arias

In the Matter ofa Family Offense Proceeding FUe#: 142040
Docket#: O-207S5-14
Michael Krichevshy,
Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL
-against-
Elena Svenson,
Respondent
A petition under Article8ofdie FamilyCourt Act having been filed in this Courton August
13,2014 for the following: Order ofProtection;
And the matrar having duly come,oh to be heard before this Court and the following having
speared: Elena Svenson;
NOW,afterexamination and inquiryinto the &cts and circumstancesofthe case,itis hereby

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed due to ftulure of Petitioner to appear; it is
therefore
ORDERED that the petition herein is dismissed without prejudice.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 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 OFTHE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OFCOURT,OR
30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE
CHILD UPON THE APPELLANT,WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.
Dated: October 5,2015 E]
Hon. Maria Arias

\ r
EXHIBIT
J
, Matter ofSvenson v Krichevsky Page 1 of2
Matter of Svenson v Krichevsky

Motion No:2015-01323
Slip Opinion No:2017 NY Slip Op 60049(U)

Decided on January 3,2017
Appellate Division,Second Department, Motion Decision
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law
431.
This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the OiScial
Reports.
Supreme Court ofthe State ofNew York
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M223776
E/sl
JOHN M.LEVENTHAL,J.P.
SANDRA L. SGROI
HECTOR D.LASALLE
BETSY BARROS,JJ.
2015-01323
In the Matter ofElena Svenson,

respondent,
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
V Michael Krichevsky, appellant.
(Docket No. F-28901-08/13F)
Appeal by Michael Krichevslqr from an order ofthe Family Court, Kings County,dated January 8,
2015. By order to show cause dated October 17,2016,the parties were directed to show cause before
this Court why m order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-
entitled proceeding for failure to comply with a scheduling order dated July 25,2016,issued pursuant to
670.4(a)(2)ofthe rules ofthis Court(22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]).
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/motions/2017/2017_60049.htm 3/7/2017
.Mattar ofSvenson v Krichevsky 2of2
Now,upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed, without costs
or disbursements,for failure to comply with the scheduling order dated July 25,2016,issued musuant to
670.4(a)C2)ofthe rules ofthis Court(22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]).
LEVENTHAL,J.P., SGROI,LASALLE and BARROS,JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aptilanne Agostino
Clerk ofthe Court
http://www.nycourts.gOv/reporter/motions/2017/2017_60049.htm 3/7/2017

Answer Article 78 2017 - 03 - 28 - 23 - 07 - 40

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer Article 78 2017 - 03 - 28 - 23 - 07 - 40

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer Article 78 2017 - 03 - 28 - 23 - 07 - 40

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT

Falsely Accused, Claimant,

Family Court(collectively referred to as the "Family Court respondents"), by their attorney,the

respectfully allege that they:

allegations are admitted herein.

hereby affirms that the following is true and correct:

proceeding dismissed in its entirety.

The Underlying Family Court Proceedings

4. On November 3,2008, Elena Svenson filed a Family Offense Petition, dated

5. After various submissions by the respective parties indicating their respective

collectively annexed hereto as Exhibit"B".

Court Decision and Order, p. 6.

letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C".

October 6,2014, the Family Court{Milsap, Support Magistrate)determined that Petitioner

are collectively annexed hereto as Exhibit"D".

10. By Findings ofFact(Milsap, Support Magistrate)and Order ofCommitment and

denied Petitioner Kiichevsky's objections to the "determination of Support Magistrate Michael

and Order. A copy ofthe Notice ofAppeal is atmexed hereto as Exhibit"G".

Krichevsky's motion for poor person's relief

A copy ofthe June 19,2015 Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit"H".

The Article 78 Proceeding

17. By Verified Petition ("Petition"), dated December 19,2016,Petitioner Krichevsky

A. General Standards For An Article 78 Proceeding

powers. See Matter of Holtzman v Goldman.71 N.Y.2d 564,569,528 N.Y.S.2d 21,24(1988);

Matter ofRush v Mordue.68 N.Y.2d 348,352,509 N.Y.S.2d 493,495(1986). Mandamus will

Braun.84 N.Y.2d 674,679,621 N.Y.S.2d 291,292-93(1994); Matter of Legal Aid Societv v

Scheinman.53 N.Y.2d 12, 16,439 N.Y.S.2d 882,884(1981); State v. King,sunra.36 N.Y.2d at

19. An Article 78 proceeding cannot be used to compel a particular determination in a

Communications. Inc.. suora. 74 N.Y.2d at 628,541 N.Y.S.2d at 972; Bloeth v. Marks. 20

substantive law or procedure, however grievous." LaRocca v. Lane. 37 N.Y.2d 575,579,376

364 N.Y.S.2d at 882.

B. The Appellate Division Lacks Jurisdiction

20. CPLR 506(b)states, in pertinent part, that

(b)Proceeding against body or officer. A proceeding against a body or officer

Santorelli v. District Attomev of Westchester Countv.252 A.D.2d 504,504-05,676 N.Y.S.2d

610(1985)(" The jurisdiction ofthis court[Appellate Division] is invoked pursuant to CPLR

against all the parties.

C. This Proceeding Is Barred By The

the requisite statute oflimitations period.

N.Y.S.2d 25,29(1991); Matter of Village of Westburv v. Dept. ofTransportation. 75 N.Y.2d 62,

claim or cause ofaction.

217 and should be dismissed.

D. Petitioner Fails To State A Claim Or A Clear

statutory authority.^Association of Surrogate and Sunreme Court Reporters v. Bartlett.40

N.Y.2d 571,574,388 N.Y.S.2d 882,884(1976); Matter of Carpenter v. Citv ofTrov. 192

A.D.2d 946,554 N.Y.S.2d 667,668(2d Dep't 1990).

and the proceeding dismissed.

WHEREFORE,your deponent respectfully requests ajudgment denjdng the petition and

just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York

Falsely Accused, Claimant,

respectfully allege that they:

allegations are admitted herein.

hereby affirms that the following is true and correct:

3. This affirmation is submitted in opposition to the "Verified Petition"("Petition"),

proceeding dismissed in its entirety.

The Underlying Family Court Proceedings