Preview:

[*1]


Decided on May 26, 2005
Supreme Court, Kings County

48288-2000
Mark M. Holtzer, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Snitow Kanfer Holter & Millus, LLP 575 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Robert D. Arenstein, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
295 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Elizabeth J. Fee, Esq.
Law Guardian
26 Court Street, Suite 2503
Brooklyn, New York 11242
Michael A. Ambrosio, J.
This case raises the issue of custody of the children CB, age 11 and SB, age 10. CB and SB are the children of the parties who married in August 21, 1991 and separated in August 2000.
Inbar B, the defendant-mother, commenced this post-judgment proceeding for custody of the children contending that she is entitled to custody pursuant to a separation agreement executed by the parties on September 21, 2000. She further claims that Nathan B, the plaintiff-father, is an unfit parent who has engaged in a conspiracy to eliminate her as a parent of the children.
The court conducted a trial on the best interest of the children (see, Friderwitzer v Friderwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167). The trial was held before this court on November 3, 4, 10 and 16, 2004; December 15 and 16, 2004; January 14, 2005; February 3, 8 and 15, 2005 and March 1, 2005. In addition to the parties and nine other witnesses called by the parties, the court heard from Paul Hymowitz, PhD, a licensed psychologist who performed a forensic evaluation of the parties and the children. The court conducted an in camera interview of the two children in the presence of their law guardian on March 11, 2005. The record of this interview was ordered sealed except for purposes of appellate review. Written summations from counsel were received on March 31, 2005. The court has had a full opportunity to consider the [*2]evidence presented with respect to the issues in this proceeding, including the testimony offered and the exhibits received. The court has further had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the various witnesses called to testify and has made determinations on issues of credibility with regard to these witnesses. The court now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
A. FINDINGS OF FACT

The parties were married in 1991. The marriage was a troubled one marked by mistrust. When plaintiff-father accepted a teaching position in Rhode Island, the defendant-mother accused him of having an affair. The parties reunited and moved to Israel where the children were born. They ultimately returned to New York but continued having marital conflicts. This time the plaintiff

Download 2005_51195.pdf

New York Law