STATE OF NEW YORK : © COUNTY OF ERIE SUPREME COURT : PART 21 BETH HOSKINS, Plaintiff, vs. INDEX NO. 900755/05 JEFFREY STACEY, Defendant . MOTIONS 28 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, New York November 12, 2015 Before: HONORABLE JOHN F. O'DONNELL, Supreme Court Justice. APPEARANCES: JOAN ADAMS, ESQ., Appearing for the Plaintiff. FRANK J. LONGO, ESQ., Appearing for the Defendant. THOMAS A. DEUSCHLE, ESQ., Attorney for the Child. (Plaintiff not present.) DONNA M. NOWACZYK, Official Court Reporter10 Te 12 iZ 14 a5) 16 a7. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 2 (Proceeding commenced at 2:35 p.m. THE COURT: What were we scheduled for this afternoon, Mr. Deuschle? MR. DEUSCHLE: We were scheduled this afternoon for either a decisions or argument with respect to the motions. Mr. Stacey had filed a motion or filed petition for access, Joan Adams had filed a notion to dismiss the petition for facial insufficiency, I joined in that with a couple responding affidavits, and Mr. Longo responded in two davits objecting to our dismissal motions. MS. ADAMS: I also have motions that I filed January 20th, 2015, Your Honor, seeking orders of protection and relief from violations of the prior order of protection and related expenses. And also we filed a contempt motion for failure to pay support, if you recall, failure to pay pursuant to the garnishment We attached to the papers the issues regarding the documents regarding corporate ownership, et cetera. THE COURT: Mr. Longo? MR. LONGO: Well, Judge, I agree with Mr. Deuschle, we're here either for a decision or a argument on the oral argument, I'm not sure which. THE COURT: Let me ask you first about is there any argument about the support arrears?10 qn 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 3 MR. LONGO: Okay. Judge, I believe we responded to that. If you're talking about the most recent issue that -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. LONGO: -- Miss Adams' office brought up about these checks, I can I think shed some light on that, I think a couple of checks in October of this year, but I don't think that's what Miss Adams is talking about. MS. ADAMS: It's been a continuous issue, Judge. It just happens that I had to file two affidavits of what happened in the month of Cctober, three checks were not delivered and we got a bunch of different stories and spent about God knows how much tracking them down. I asked the husband, excuse me, the father to pay directly and he refused. But I filed a motion on January 20th, 2015, and it's never -- we haven't decided it and that is because he had not paid support for a ng period of time, and just the prior year we had been in front of you and he stipulated to an income execution and promised he would never ever let it happen again, and in fact he owed, all the orders are in the papers, approximately 1,500 to $2,000 then, and we waited for those payments and it wasn't less than a year that he quit that job and the income10 a 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 4 execution didn't pay and I had to, as part of this large motion following the Christmas Eve radio show involving his child, myself and my client, he also had not paid support pursuant, you know, he just doesn't I just have to keep coming here. And it happened again just last month. MR. LONGO: Judge, if I may THE COURT: Yes, go ahead. MR. LONGO: As far as the most current claims by Miss Adams' office thet two checks during the month of October were not paid, Judge, I believe I can, oh, I can assure the Court that in fact paychecks -- Mr. Golisano's company did in fact, or former company, did in fact deduct the money from my client's pay, paycheck, and did in fact send those two checks, one for $100 and one for $200. Those two checks were sent to Besroi, my client's employer. Those checks were then mailed by the CEO of Besroi, owner, to Miss Adams office, and I verified that with Besroi Roofing. I believe that what happened at that point is someone in Miss Adams' office took those checks, put them into a see through envelope with a window, windowed envelope and mailed those to Miss Adams’ client. At that point I'm told that there is no mailbox at Miss Adams -: Miss Hoskins' home and so the checks wound up being10 1 12 13. 14 15 16 y 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey . delivered to a neighbor, maybe across the street neighbor, and that person then saw through the windowed envelope that the, that the issuer of the check was Besroi Roofing and returned those checks to Besroi Roofing. At that point I believe Miss Hoskins went to Besroi Roofing and picked up those checks. What I wanted to point out Judge, is my client is not culpable in any way, shape or form for the, once the checks were mailed to Miss Adams' office. Once they got to Miss Adams' office, what happened after that maybe is the problem of Miss Hoskins not having a mailbox, maybe it's the U.S. Postal Service, but my client had nothing to do with that whatscever and I -- THE COURT: But that's -- those are the checks in October, right? MR. LONGO: October, correct, Judge THE COURT: Okay. And your client has received those checks? MS. ADAMS: Yeah. That's not what -- THE COURT: Okay. It's for a period before we came to court and while we, this matter was pending MS. ADAMS: I begged Miss Patterson to get the check. I couldn't get the money. MR. LONGO: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you THE COURT: What?10 ql 12 13 a 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 6 MS. ADAMS: Yeah. When -- I didn't even want to have -- I mean I filed the papers and unfortunately you were not involved, Miss Patterson was assigned from I believe Legal Aid. MR. LONGO: Legal Aid. MS. ADAMS: And the entire time if you remember she got like three or four adjournments, I said can you please make up the arrears and she couldn't get him to do it and she was off. That went for months and months even to the point where she was no longer attorney, she moved to withdraw in April 2015. THE COURT: So the arrears are from what period? Starting when? A year ago? Is that what you're -- two years ago? MS. ADAMS: The arrears that were originally accumulated in the motion that I filed September, excuse me, January 2015, he stopped paying and -- THE COURT: What were the arrears in January 20157 MS. ADAMS: Well, Your Honor, they -- if I can just -- I'll make it easy for you. The entire time Miss Patterson represented him he wouldn't pay so they kept increasing, okay? So they kept increasing and then they were paid. I think Mr. --12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 7 MR. STACEY: So what's the problem? MS. ADAMS: The problem is I shouldn't have to spend $5,000 to get an order. I had to bring this THE COURT: Excuse me. What do you claim the amount of arrears is? MS. ADAMS: There is no arrears right now, now as we stand here. All the time that I've been coming here there's been thousands in arrears. All the t @ that -- I brought the motion in January, we had three court appearances, he wouldn't pay. Then it was caught up. My problem is I can't do this every three months and there's got to be some penalty cause this is obviously not taken seriously. COURT: And there's an order directing payment through the Support Collection Unit, is that right? MS. ADAMS: No. We settled a year and-a-half ago with Mr. Stacey. He agreed to an income execution through Besroi Construction. He promptly quit there, so that's not effective. Then he claimed he had no income or source of income. I proved to you with the documents attached to my papers that should be in front of the Court that he was working with Plum Window Fashions, In fact, he was acting as the president. He10 a1 12 13 1a 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 ce igs 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 8 paid over -- you remember, Judge THE COURT: I do remember MS. ADAMS: Okay. So what happens is approximately every three to four months he just stops paying child support. I've been in this court I don't know how many times, how many times over the past year, and just a month ago -- it is not true that I mailed the checks to my client. I never have, never did. We never received those. Besroi is well aware of that. [ don't file sworn affidavits in my office that we didn't receive them when we in fact mailed them. And we had to go to Besroi to get the checks. But the fact is the Court needs -- I'm asking the Court, I've moved the Court, I filed many affidavits, he will not do what he's supposed to do. The entire four months of January, February, March and April he paid noe support despite that we come into this courtroom. He just wouldn't pay. He did it prior to Jenuary. He's done it -- I was here last year in front of you, Judge, and at some point something has to be done and I'm asking the Court, whether it's a counsel fee award, whether it's counsel fee award and fines, he hasn't paid counsel fee awards, they're all reduced to judgment from seven years ago. He never paid Lorraine Engl, if there's a judoment on it. I mean it's just10 a. 12 13 14 tj 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 9 recalcitrant conduct over and over but there's remedies for this and that's why I've moved the Court. And we just can't say well, we have -- I'd ask you not to just rely on a Court order of support because it doesn't work and I think I've demonstrated it. And so I had no other means of securing the support. The income execution was the last remedy and he had quit that job and then he just wouldn't pay last, in the beginning of this year, and so I asked for contempt cause it was willful, and he declared he wouldn't pay, his lawyer told me. So then he moved for access again in June after he withdrew it and decided to pay. Then he stopped again in October and apparently now this is the first time I'm hearing it, it's my fault, it's my fault he didn't pay. MR. LONGO: I agree. THE COURT: Couldn't help yourself, could you? MR. LONGO: Judge, if I may. My client was laid off for a period of time and he's a carpenter, he works outside for Besroi Roofing. He has no control over that. As far as -- MS. ADAMS: Well -- I subpoenaed his records THE COURT: Excuse me. MR. LONGO: I'm almost finished.12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hoskins vs. Stacey 10 MS. ADAMS: Understood. MR. LONGO: If I may, Judge. As far as Plum Window, my client and I've answered in affidavits and along with my client's affidavit, along with his father who's the owner of this business, I've answered in affidavits to Miss Adams, he received no compensation whatsoever. He took over for a period of time, his father's business because his father was diagnosed and suffering from cancer, as was Mr. Stacey, and at no « e did he receive any compensation at all. He did this as a son. He took care of paying some bills and signing some checks but received nothing whatsoever in the way of compensation which could then be attributed to his income that he would then be able to pay child support from. And as Miss Adams points out, there are no arrears at this point. MS. ADAMS: And if I can just respond. Just. he just said well, he was laid off, okay? I have his subpoenaed records, he knows I subpoenaed them. On June 6th, 2014, the notation -- that was approximately three months after he stood in court, begged us to enter into a settlement, it will never happen again, garnish my wages, please give me a month to pay the arrears, I'll pay them, okay? It says, didn't want to dig holes. said he was a carpenter as per JH. He13 14 1s 16 17 18. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hoskins vs. Stacey ai quit. He quit. This is a bald face misrepresentation I have the entire file here with a certification from Besroi. It's the second page in. He knows it. I mean really? He worked for his father -- he ran his father's window company and just didn't take a paycheck? They conducted business, he's the sole employee and he didn't take -- this is laughable seriously, and something's got to be déne, Judge. I mean I've come here time and again. The last time we let it go. There's no incentive for him to do anything but not support this child. And he claims, he claims he really wants to act as a full-fledged father, that's a whole nother thing. But there is no reason he's going to pay if something more significant isn't done I have spent a lot of time and effort to be here today and I've bent over backwards, we all did, and it was you, me, Mr. Stacy and Miss Hoskins when we, last time on the contempt in 2014, let him go, took his offer of the stipulated income execution, there will never be a problem. He quit in three months. JI wrote letters. brought my motion and even when I got to Court and he had counsel, I'm not paying, I want custody. That's what happened all the way through Nadine Patterson's representation. THE COURT: But there are no arrears.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 WwW 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 12 MS. ADAMS: No, as I stand here now there aren't. But isn't -- that's not the state of the law. So you spend all this money, every six months you bring a proceeding, he paid up. The reason that I have those $300 worth of checks is the amount of time and money my office spent. He didn't lift a finger. They never came to my office. And I never sent them to Beth Hoskins. I never do. I haven't since 2009. They come to my office and she picks them up. They've never been mailed to her. And if you look at my affidavits from my office it's a different thing. Now this is -- he talked to them and he knows what happened in my office I have sworn affidavits. We spoke to the company. They couldn't explain how they magically appeared at their office and they had been opened. It's all in my affidavits. But regardless, I got ahold of Mr. Longo, I said please, we don't have the money, can you please cover this, can you please take care of it? No. But the fact is Judge, it's a simple child support case. He won't pay. He keeps violating. He didn't get laid off. It's a bald face lie. He quit and I have the certified records here to prove it and he knows it. And we just please have to do something to make this man abide that order. THE COURT: Is there some argument you would10 a1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 Hoskins vs. Stacey 13 like to make Mr. Longo, in opposition to the motion to dismiss the petitions? MR. LONG : Yes, Judge. Judge, 1 noted in my cross-motion and I would ask the Court to take judicial notice of the case of Santosky versus Kramer. Judge that's a Supreme Court case, It's a -- it's a TPR case, Judge, which the Supreme Court ruled that, I'11 quote here, parents have a fundamental right, liberty interest in the care of their children, child which is protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Judge, I realize here we stand before the Court with a custody case. This was a TPR case. But Judge, over the past 10 or 11 years effectively my client's parental rights have all been terminated with the exception of one item had been a formal TPR case, Judge, he would not have to pay any child support, but in this case everything that goes with a TPR has befallen my client and except for he's still required to pay child support. Now my argument is that this -- my client has not been given due process as far as what has effectively happened to him and that is his parental rights have really been terminated And Judge, I would also ask the Court to take a look at Lassiter versus Department of Social Services. Again, the Court in its dicta, pointed out that a10 11 13) 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 14 natural parent's desire and right to companionship, care and custody and management of his or her children is an interest far more precious than any property right. I'm going -- I would ask the Court to take both of those into consideration in rendering its decision. Again, Judge, I have a number of cases which are not custody cases. These are -- these are cases in which -- I'll start with the matter of Steven versus Meghan. These are cases where a criminal, someone who has been convicted of a crime and been incarcerated then comes before a Family Court and asks that their child be transported from wherever, whatever custodian has the child, to a New York State Department of Corrections facility and that they be allowed to visit with their child. Judge, there's -- as I say, in the matter of Steven versus Meegan. I'm sorry, Tyrone versus Thomas, or Thomas versus Thomas. In the matter of Brown versus Divelbliss which is a Fourth Department case. Again, Court of Appeals Judge Pigott case in re Granger. Third Department case matter of Bougor versus Murray. All of these cases Judge, are cases where the Third Department but mostly the Fourth Department and the Court of Appeals have ruled in favor of these criminals being allowed to have access to their child. Standing before you my client, Judge, has not been10 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 45) convicted ever of any criminal act at all and yet he's been denied access based on a bunch of unproven allegations and some matter of with regard to, to some independent psychiatrist's report who never even visited or interviewed or talked to my client declaring him a sociopath. I think sociopath here might be the party that was supposed to conduct the evaluation, but that's neither here nor there. Judge, as far as the issue of no changes of circumstances with Mr. Deuschle and Miss Adams claiming that there's no change of circumstances, somebody being convicted of animal abuse on 52 different animals, 52 different counts, that case going to trial, that case having been going up to the County Court to Judge Pietruszka and having been ruled on the appeal and having been affirmed, the conviction Judge Markey's decision was affirmed, Judge, again, 1 submit to the Court if that's not a change of circumstances since Your Honor's original ruling, 1 don't know what we could possibly bring before the Court that would be considered a change of circumstances. So I would ask the Court to deny Mr. Deuschle and Miss Adams' claim that there is no change of circumstances and basically get to the bottom line and all my client is asking for is to have an independent professional, Dr. Heffler or10 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20) Hoskins vs. Stacey 16 anyone that the Court deems appropriate, to do an evaluation and determine and report back to the Court whether supervised therapeutic visitation is advisable If it comes back and they say no, he's still denied, should be denied his right to see the child, then I can assure you you'll, you won't hear from me again on this and Mr. Stacey is ready to accept that, but I would at least ask the Court to give him that one last opportunity. THE COURT: You started your argument by saying that your client's due process rights were violated. How was that? How did that occur? MR, LONGO: Well, Judge, there hasn't been a well, effectively his parental rights have been terminated, Judge, with one exception, as I say he still gets to pay. THE COURT: ‘here was a hearing. MR. LONGO: But not a permanent -- not a -- there was no hearing to terminate his parental rights. THE COURT: There was a hearing to determine, to determine custody and access. MR. LONGO: I understand that, but I mean that there's a different standard of proof required in a termination of parental rights, has to be clear and convincing, whereas a custody matter which he was10 un ie 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 17 involved in is a matter of preponderance. THE COURT: But when there was an evaluation wasn't he given the opportunity to participate in that evaluation which was then, the results of which were brought to the Court? MR. LONGO: Judge, that was over four or five years ago I'm finding out. MR. STACEY Ten years ago. MR. LONGO: Ten years ago. What I'm saying is that after the decision of the Court in which it was determined that he should not have access with his child, that that is when the animal abuse and the allegations, proven allegations, convictions all came in after that. I'm saying that there's a change of circumstances there and that from that point on I'm asking the Court to consider what we are asking for in terms of resolution. THE COURT: Ms. Adams, what about an evaluation? Ms, ADAMS: I think that I'm -- it may be that Mr. Longo might not know the full facts what happened there. Mr. -- there was no denial of any constitutional rights and this was not @ termination case, as you said. But he references one expert There were three experts. There was a Court —- Dr.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 18 Bongiovanni was appointed by the Court. Both -- and Mr. Stacey submitted to Dr. Bongiovanni, did not pay him, so did Miss Hoskins, and those reports were issued and he testified. There was also a custody evaluation done separately by a separate well known expert, Dr. Loraine Engl. Dr. Loraine Engl also testified. Dr Brian Joseph as a third expert also testified. I would remind the Court -- THE COURT: Well, let me -- Mr. Stacey, hocks<— MR. STACEY: Yes. THE COURT: If you want me to hear what's going on you have to be quiet. MR. STACEY: I'm just advising my attorney Your Honor. THE COURT: 1 understand, but you're using what we used to call an Irish whisper and that's interfering with me hearing. MR. STACEY: I apologize. It wasn't intentional. THE COURT: I know it wasn't. I'm just asking you to please keep your voice down. MR, STACEY: And I am Irish though, I understand the analogy. THE COURT: Dr. Joseph did not interview10 28h 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 19 anyone, he made his evaluation based on the records that were given to him. MS. ADAMS: Yes, because the other two were Court appointed. And I'll remind the Court to say that this was some kind of denial of due process, we had the child's pediatrician and other formidable experts. Wwe had -- form him to say a denial of due process, Mr. Stacey called and put up his own counselor, she testified here. There had to be four mental health people and the child's pediatrician, Dr. Gerry Lauria, not to mention a veterinarian, not to mention Mr. Stacey, Miss Hoskins, and Mr. Stacey's good friend Kevin Clough also testified. So if you go back and look at your decision which is attached as, Exhibit. one of the exhibits to my papers, Exhibit A, this was not a situation where one person made a determination without seeing him Now, you went on at length about why you made your decision, that it was not in the best interests of the child at that time to see her father. And I'm not going to -- you know, he appealed from that, never pursued it, we amended it, everything else. After that he filed a motion for modification. Just so we're all clear, he filed the motion for modification within less than a month of the SPCA raid that they talk about.10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 ze 23 24 25. Hoskins vs. Stacey 20 Okay? We've already had that case. The SPCA raid they talk about. I subpoenaed the SECA records and it showed, and they've already been delivered to you, that Mr. Stacey was directly involved with that. In fact he was on the witness list for the trial. He was involved with some of the people working on it, providing information, et cetera. Mr. Deuschle was appointed. Mr. Stacey was represented. And I'L remind the Court we argued, we being Miss Hoskins and myself, ultimately the Attorney For The Child as well he hasn't -~ doesn't understand the Court's ruling. It's a problem with him, I'll say it nicely, and we literally asked and you allowed him the opportunity to demonstrate that perhaps he's done something to change what was clearly demonstrated with a lot of time and effort and expertise to this Court, and he brought in an affidavit indicating that he was being counseled by a woman and that woman, for lack of better terms, was not properly credentialed, she ultimately killed herself, but in the meantime you did allow him to do that, he submitted more information on it, myself on behalf of Miss Hoskins, Mr. Deuschle on behalf of the child, submitted more papers, and you ruled on it. You ruled he has not demonstrated any change that would warrant this. Okay? This was after the SPCA. He was10 4 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 21 ready and raring to go, filed those papers cause he knew what.was going to happen, and so he filed again last year. I moved to dismiss but he withdrew it approximately five court appearances later and within less than three weeks refiled in June 2015. I mean this is some kind of maybe not so serious position and it's getting old, Judge. So when you ask me what about that? The argument is not sound. People are entitled to end things and go home. He has not addressed the issues for which you made a decision. We have been here on countless occasions over years and years about these same things. And on one occasion he raised that he was getting some mental health help. The woman was not credentialed. I was looked into and deemed not appropriate and you ruled. Nothing has changed since then other than he wants to come back here. So it is not simply appropriate to say his constitutional rights were denied, one guy testified and he never saw him, cause that's not the truth. That is not the truth of what happened here and it's not the historical truth. So, you know, he just filed in June, Judge. We were here two years ago after the SPCA raid and we litigated that for a year and-a-half and some of that still remains outstanding because we brought actions just like, just like the one I'm still yet to argue today.10 11 a2) 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 22 I provided to you and you issued a ruling on it. There were documents that were clear that he was openly violating the order of protection, particularly the order of protection that we stipulated to that he could not use third-parties as he has countless times in the past to harass Miss Hoskins and he did that through that SPCA venture. I -- Mr. Longo was not involved but Mr. Deuschle was, I submitted all those documents, you wrote a ruling on it. I have it here. And then Mr. -- I was supposed to do depositions and Mr. Stacey had indicated that he had I believe had cancer so we held them in abeyance. But back then there was a contempt action with the violation of the orders of protection and when the Court deems it appropriate I'll address that aspect of my application. But I'm sorry, it's interesting but it's not the actual facts nor the truth of what has happened in this case. And I've been here the whole way and you have too. It's just not true that there was a Dr. Joseph, he never saw him and it wasn't fair. 8 not what happened. And since then he's been to court and since the SPCA he's been to court, and we came five times and he got more information and it was just -- you ruled on it. THE COUR’ Okay. MS. ADAMS: So, I'm sorry, that's just -- and10 a 13 14 15: 16 18 19 20 21 22 3) 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 23 I understand Mr. Longo, it's a long history and he wasn't around and I don't know what the confusion is with the terminating parental rights, it's just not applicable to what we're talking about. If you need me to comment on that more I can THE COURT: Mr. Deuschle. MR. DEUSCHLE: Thank you, Your Honor. agree with Miss Adams, I was not the original AFC, for Mr. Longo's edification, I don't know if he was aware of that, during the trial, but you know, the Court's decision back in 2006 did indicate that based upon the testimony of a number of psychologists that the actions of Mr. Stacey prevented a healthy, prevented him having a healthy daughter/father relationship. In 2013 we were before this Court and Mr. Stacey was represented by I believe Mr. Shelby at that time, we had this exact same argument. At that time in November of 26th, 2013 I hed submitted an affidavit to the Court and in that affidavit I stated that he did not take any steps with any counselor to show that his actions, behaviors has changed or has done anything to show that he could in fact improve his situation and create a healthy father/daughter relationship. Likewise, as we sit here today and in reading Mr. Longo's papers there is no facts, no allegations set forth that Mr. Stacey, heCBr a ane anes WC RY 10 qi. 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 24 himself has taken anything or done anything with the help of a psychologist or psychiatrist to treat the problems that were addressed based upon the testimony of these psychologists and psychiatrists, so for that xeason Your Honor, I don't believe that there has been any change of circumstances. If he comes back into court and has information or testimony or documentation that he has in fact consulted with these individuals, these individuals had the opportunity maybe to review the trial transcript and/or reports of these prior doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, then that is a different situation, we don't have that here today. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: And if I may request of the Court, I think it should be relevant to this Court because it was relevant in a multitude of your prior decisions, if I can just, rather than have you rule on this and then address the order of protection issue, if I -- I'll ask for that relief when you tell me it's appropriate, I just want to remind you there was a stipulated order of protection in place for the benefit of Beth Hoskins and her daughter. It was in effect through December 31st, 2014, so just the end of last year, and you have it in front of you, it's attached as Exhibit, excuse me, I believe it's Exhibit D to yourGoosen OV ree eta ana 10 a 12 13) 14 15 16 17 18 1g 20 aa 22 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey Zs to my papers. On Christmas Eve last year I began getting calls into my office, now that would be December 25th when the order's in ce, and I'11 remind you Judge, I -- probably you and I -- 1 certainly couldn't recollect all the times I've had to come here for an order of protection because of misconduct, but you might remember when he got all the police to drive up on Christmas, about two years before that we had to come in here. On Christmas Eve calls started coming into my office, and I've attached for you the transcript and submitted various transcripts to the Court, but it's okay if you don't have it because it's displayed on the worldwide web. It's Exhibit E in my papers. Mr. Stacey, and it was arranged and advertised in advance, went on the local radio station FM930, for over two hours and specifically talked denigrated Beth Hoskins, this Court, Your Honor, me over and over again. He made false statements. I have detailed them in here. I've attached the transcript He went on, and several years ago we stipulated on January 30th, 2009, to a comprehensive order of protection that also barred third-parties from acting on his behalf because he did it repeatedly and he admitted it and we had testimony. His sister would go to the pediatrician. His sister called East Aurora~ 10 11 a2 13 14 16 7 18 19 20 21 Hoskins vs. Stacey 26 schools that my client was working with with regard to her daughter, and meddled in there. His sister called into the radio show from Wyoming, said she was in the courtroom during the trial which we know is a lie, you banned everyone from the courtroom, and heard the testimony of an expert who said that, and I quote it from the exhibit, page 16, that Alexandria, his daughter, was developmentally delayed, and ming that on Miss Hoskins. Now that is protected information and if he and his family would stoop to the level of embarrassing, naming that child is disgusting. It is downright disgusting. And this went on for two hours mocking this Court, mocking this courtroom and the Supreme Court generally, that he was going to do whatever he had to do to take me down, to take Hoskins down, and to get his kid. And what he said, the filthy comments he made is all laid out for you. You've had them since January. I made sure you had them. Now in addition, his stepmother got on. You talk about harassment by proxy? Said the same thing. They laughed, and I put this in my papers, there's no denial of this, they laughed and said we're all probably going to go to jail, we just hope we're going to be in the seme cell. This is right in the transcript, was on air, it's on the worldwide web and it has been10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 27 There's no -- there can be no disputing this, all in violation of an order of protection. I have had orders of protection in this case because of this man's conduct for over 10 years. I was getting calls myself from as far away as Florida about the things that were said about me, about the disparaging remarks of my client, and that they would stoop to the level of using this child for his, for two and-a-half hours of chest pumping. Then it was put on the worldwide web. ‘Then his friend Kevin Clough, who testified in the divorce case, who was at the window and your deputy had to tell him to step away cause he was listening as a witness banned from the courtroom, he opened up a website and rallied everyone to be here at these court proceedings. Now, then Mr. Caputo has put on the wo: wide web on various internet sites, once again all submitted to the Court, isn't disputed and doesn't even attempt to dispute it other than the first time Mr. Longo came here and said none of it's true, but I think that's been retracted, now stories are written and presented for Your Honor, the evil queen and the great hunter. The great hunter would be Mr. Stacey, the evil queen Beth Hoskins. This man is sick. He's been sick. He did this when an order of protection was in place and I've been waiting -- I mean I served the radio station.10 i 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 28 I've gone to private counsel over this. We need to do something, And to consider that he's asking to see this child in any capacity is, is atrocious, and if this doesn't speak volumes I don't know what does. He doesn't get it. Your order was in place and they've been in place for years and years and years, you've written decisions about his violations, what more do we have to do. And with that, I'm asking please, we're asking for an order of protection to be reinstated. We have been asking, we've never had since I filed this right after it expired and he did this. He has no bona fide defense. He should be held in contempt. It's outrageous. He's done it for 11 years. I'm asking for an order of protection and I'm asking for the broad order of protection against third-parties acting on his behalf. They did it a year ago Christmas Eve. They had a good time. They laughed and joked. I'm the one who got the calls. I'm the one who had to get a stenographer, on Christmas Eve, to transcribe that live radio show, and had friends and family and clients calling me over it. Enough of his jokes and sick conduct. This man should be held in contempt and a comprehensive order of protection with aggravating circumstances for five years like the last one that youw in 10 qa 12 13; 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 Hoskins vs. Stacey 29 granted for aggravating circumstances, should be granted. And I shouldn't have to keep coming here. 1 think that blatant public airways, worldwide web, mocking the child, you, the la yers, and the mother of his child, the only person who takes care of that child, he hasn't, is enough, Judge If you have any questions I'm happy to answer them. ot THE COURT: Mr. Longo. MR. LONGO: Judge, with regard to the order of protection, I believe Your Honor ruled on that either the last time or the time previous ruled that the order of protection would not be extended MS. ADAMS: That was not ruled on MR. LONGO: Excuse me, I'm almost done Judge, with regard to this radio interview, I believe the order of protection that was in effect at the time said that my client could not have contact with the child, with Beth Hoskins, and that he should not cause any third-parties to have any contact with them. The allegations, while they may be true, I've gone through that entire transcript, none of it, not one iota of truth is attributed to my client. These are comments by third-parties and my client has stated, under oath, that he did not cause any of these, he didn't askine ta, aN 10 qd 12 13 14 16 17 18 ag 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 30 anybody, Caputo or Sandy Beachball or anybody else to make any comments denigrating Beth Hoskins or Joan Adams or Your Honor or anybody else. I mean he did not do anything to violate that order. He did not cause third-parties to do that. I mean he can't be held responsible for what somebody else believes to be unfair treatment that he's receiving. I mean he can agree with them, but the questions that he was asked he was asked what the name of his ex-wife's attorney was and he gave it. He didn't say that SOB Joan Adams he just said it was Joan Adams. I mean how is that in any way, shape or form a violation of the order of protection when he's giving pedigree information nothing more, nothing less? And he didn't ask these people to make their comments or write articles or do anything or make phone calls. He didn't contact his sister and say call and give your opinion, he didn't do that and he's denied it and under oath in his xesponding affidavit. I don't know what more we can do here. THE COURT: Mr. Deuschle, do you wish to be heard on this? MR. DEUSCHLE: I guess with respect to the order of protection, Mr. Stacey has not had any contact with my client in over -- in nine years. I'm noto 10 11 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 31 worried about a Number 1 which is the stay away order of protection because he has in fact abided by that. I am concerned with the transcript of the things that went on in the transcript and the comments regarding the case. I would just ask the Court for a Number 2 order of protection which would x frain all offensive conduct regarding comments regarding my client, I don't think those were appropriate. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Longo, what has your client done? You've heard the history of it, you've read the history of it, and Ms. Adams and Mr. Deuschle suggest strongly that your clie! t has not done anything to show that he is a changed person from what was testified to at the original hearing MR. LONGO: Well, Judge, in the last four five years since the Court's decision I don't, I don't know of any remedial steps that he might have taken in terms of counseling or anything. However, Judge, the change in circumstances is in regard to the child and the custodian of the child. I mean what he has done is he has cone nothing wrong either before or since, yet the custedian, the person who's keeping this child, his child away from him through the courts, has in fact become a convicted criminal 52 times. And as far as the dates or that, Judge, I believe that the case was10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 Hoskins vs. Stacey 32 finally decided at the Appellate level in County Court here by Judge Pietruszka on May Ist of this year and it is at that point that I became involved and I did withdraw the original petition that my client had filed in Family Court the previous six months prior to that, and I withdrew that in favor of my cross-motion, and so it isn't something that we're trying to confuse anyone by doing it. I didn't think that the allegations in his petition, which he was unrepresented, I didn't think that those allegations did rise to a level of a change of circumstances. However, I believe that there was a change of circumstances with regard to Miss Hoskins and that's the reason for changing withdrawing one petition in favor of the cross-motion. THE COURT: Okay. I will take a look at everything and I will get you a decision. MR. DEUSCHLE: Thank you, Your Honor MS. ADAMS: Thank you. (Proceeding concluded.) CER TIE ECA T 1.0." ithe foregoing is certified to be a true and accurate trenscript according to my stenographic notes Ubawe ony, Ateuctioyy) DONNA M. NOWACZYK, Official Court Reporter