appellant memorandum 1

rs

.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

In the Matter of Winona P. (Anonymous). AppellateSuffolk County Department of Social Services, Div. No.Petitioner-Respondent; Winona P.(Anonymous),Appellant; Paul P. (Anonymous), nonparty-Respondent 2010-06768

2010-06769

(Fam. Ct. Docket No. NN-16863-09)

APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Gina M, Scelta, Esq.Attorney for AppellantP.O. Box 407Centerport, NY11721631-327-6196

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES i

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1

ISSUES ON APPEAL 2

HISTORY OF THE CASE 3

ARGUMENTS 11

I Did the lower Court, err when it issued itsJune 23, 2010 Order of Protection? 11

II Did the Court, in its June 23 Order, findingAppellant to be neglectful by a preponderance of the evidence? 12

CONCLUSION 20

STATEMENT UNDER CPLR 5531 ii

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANTTO 22 NYCRR § 670.10.3(f) iv.

APPENDIXNOTICE OF APPEAL (2) a-1

ORDER a-2

SUBPOENA a-3

CERTIFICATION OF APPENDIX b-1

. - . ^ . ~

TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES

Cases

In In Re "Female" C — N.Y.S.2d —, 2008 WL 4491822, N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., 2008

Matter of BrandiU., 47 A.D. 3d 1103, 1104 (2008)

Matter of Joyce T., 65 NY2d 39,47

Matter of Nathaniel TT., 265 A.D.2d 611,614 Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368

Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136

Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 2 N.Y.3d 357, 368, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840

(2004)

Santoskv v. Kramer 455 US 745 (1982)

Family Court Act 1012(f) (B)

Social Services Law § 384-b (7)(a)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Appellant, Winona P. (Appellant), by her undersigned attorney, Gina M.

Scelta, appeals hereby to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second

Department, from the Orders of the Honorable James F. Quinn, both dated June 23,

2010, and from each and every part, by which she is aggrieved, as well as the whole

therefrom.

1.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

I. Did the lower Court, err when it issued its June 23, 2010 Order of

Protection?

II. Did the Court, in its June 23 Order, finding Appellant to be neglectful

by a preponderance of the evidence?

2.

HISTORY OF THE CASE

On September 17, 2009, the Suffolk County Department of Social Services

filed a petition in Family Court, Suffolk County, requesting the Court issue an order

determining that the child Winona Piscitelli to be neglected by her mother Winona

Palmiotti, pursuant to Section 1012 of the Family Court Act. The petition alleged

that Appellant placed the child in imminent risk of becoming physically, mentally

or emotionally impaired as a result of respondent's history of Child Protective

Services involvement and evading CPS in both New York and Ohio and by failing

to ensure the child received proper medical care and services due to developmental

delays and refusing to accept services for either herself or the child. A trial was

held before the Honorable James F. Quinn, Family Court Judge. The hearing began

on March 1, 2010 and proceeded over time to its conclusion on May 20, 2010.

The child, Winona Piscitelli was born on July 6, 2005 to Winona Palmiotti

and Paul Piscitelli. At the time of their child's birth, Winona Palmiotti and Paul

Piscitelli were residing together with Mr. Piscitelli's mother in Westbury, New

3.

York. Shortly before the child's first birthday, Appellant left with the child,

eventually coming to reside in the state of Ohio in 2008. During this time

Appellant had contact with the child's father, but testimony will show that the

father never attempted to petition the courts for custody of the child, nor did he

attempt to get visitation rights through the court. Appellant testified to the child's

health and well being of the child, all ordinary until a burn incident that occurred.

The court, in its Decision, makes issue of the fact that the child's immunizations

may not have been up to date, however, it is many parents prerogative to not have

their children immunized due to certain health risks associated with said

immunizations. Furthermore, the court does not make any reference to anything

negative with regards to the child's health records. When the child was

approximately three years six months old, she suffered burns on her hands when she

accidentally fell into a neighbor's fire pit. Appellant rushed her daughter to the

hospital and the child was treated there and then at a burn facility. However, due to

this incident, Ohio's Social Services started an investigation. Appellant and her

daughter left Ohio sometime after the child was treated and traveled back to New

York.

4.

Due to the move from Ohio to New York an emergency removal hearing was

held on September 18, 2009 and the child was removed from the mother's custody

and placed in the custody of the Department of Social Services. An order of

protection was also issued at the time, prohibiting the mother from seeing her child,

other than certain scheduled, supervised visitation.

The neglect hearing commenced in March, 2010.

After coming back to New York and in August, 2009, Appellant applied to

the County for services for herself and her daughter. At the hearing, much attention

was given to the meeting between Appellant and the DSS supervisor, Lisa

Vadagliacca. Ms. Vadagliacca testified that she interviewed and observed

Appellant and the child at the end of August, 2009. She observed the child acting

out and being unruly. She also testified to Appellant's behavior, stating that

Appellant seemed "short" with the child and pushing the child off onto another

chair when the child attempted to climb onto her mother's lap. Much negative

inference was given this testimony, despite the fact that parents are "short" with

their children every now and then, especially in stressful situations, such as the one

5.

where a parent is applying for emergency services. Being "short" with one's child

certainly does not rise to the level of neglect, as defined by the law, or Webster's.

Furthermore, moving the child to her own seat is also not unusual or abusive. Ms.

Vadagliacca also testified that while at the Department, Appellant struck her

daughter in the chest (Tr. 5/19/10 pg 17 at 16-20). However, when questioned

about this incident, Ms. Vadagliacca testified that the mother was seated and the

child was standing in front of her, with her back to Ms. Vadagliacca. She said that

she saw the child grab her chest and step back (Tr. 5/19/10 pg 28 at 4-6). However,

it must be noted and stressed that the child had her back to Ms. Vadagliacca; did the

social worker infer that the child grabbed her chest? Certainly, with the child's

back to her she could not have seen that movement. Also, Ms. Vadagliacca testified

that the child took a step back after her mother allegedly punched her; again, is that

the action of a four year old who was just punched in the chest by an adult? The

child did not fall, the child did not stumble. Furthermore, there was no testimony

that the child even cried out. Also of significance is the fact that no one came to the

aid of this child who was just punched. The incident was eventually reported, but at

the time, no one came to the aid of a child being "punched." Furthermore, the

6.

Department of Social Services allowed Appellant to leave with her daughter.

Certainly, if it was believed that the child was in danger of harm by the mother,

would they not have intervened and tried to protect the child? The incident was not

reported to the State Central Registry for Child Abuse and Maltreatment until well

after the fact. There was no physical inspection of the child to see if the alleged

punch left any marks or bruises. It is indeed credible that the mother may have

pushed the child with her hand. The testimony of Ms. Vadagliacca reeked of

dislike for Appellant. She described her behavior as nasty and rude. There were

angry words spoken. This negative attitude and acrimony by the social worker

must be taken into consideration when considering Ms. Vadagliacca's testimony.

At this hearing, Mr. Piscitelli, who testified that he is the child's biological

father (though a paternity hearing was not held), spoke of the child's heavy weight

(for her age), her inability to speak and of the fact that while with him, on an

extended visit, the child was doing much better. However, during the time

Appellant was taking care of her daughter, Mr. Piscitelli never petitioned the court

for custody, he did not petition the court for visitation. Although he testified that he

was concerned about her well being, he did not attempt to take the

7.

child from her mother. Again, inferences as to why must be made. Perhaps the

neglect that was alleged wasn't neglect, but merely a dislike for a Respondent who

did not cower in the face of all that were opposing her.

The behavior of the mother during the neglect hearing was controversial, but

not a basis for neglect. During the trial, because Appellant believed her rights were

being deprived and her child taken away from her, she acted out and actively

participated in her own behalf. She interrupted court proceedings, and was

removed from the courtroom one day, but that is evidence of high emotion, such as

a neglect trial would induce, not proof of neglect. The court, in its findings also

references Appellant's various motions filed by her without benefit of counsel.

Motions that were denied. During the trial the County Attorney verbally requested

to amend the petition on the basis that the mother's behavior was evidence that she

could not properly care for the child. The request was granted by the Court.

During the time the child was visiting with the Mr. Piscitelli, Appellant

mother maintained visitation with her daughter, often traveling long distances just

to see her child. The interactions between mother and child were positive. During

October, 2009, Appellant was registered and attended parenting classes at Long

8.

Island Parenting Institute and attended the Systematic Training for Effective

Parenting parenting classes.

Appellant has another child, a son, who was born when the Appellant was 15

years old. Said child was the custodial responsibility of Appellant's mother,

Winona Grant (Tr. 3/9/10 pg 35 at 1-5. Also see Temporary Order of Custody

dated June 28, 1989, Judge Salvatore R. Mosca). It seems that there was some

confusion and that Appellant was being accused of certain wrongdoings with regard

to this child that in actuality had nothing to do with her, but her mother. The court

relied on a writing by Caseworker Nancy Haddock, dated 11/27/09 which stated

" . . . Winona P., aka Winona Grant has a long history of failure to ensure her child

received proper medical care and educational services . . . The respondent's history

includes being adjudicated for the neglect of Timothy G, sibling of Winona P., the

child alleged to be neglected herein. This is absolutely wrong! Appellant Winona

P. is not Winona Grant, Winona Grant is Appellant's mother who has always had

custody of Appellant's child since almost the time of his birth. Appellant was never

accused of, nor came to be judged for the neglect of Timothy G. This confusion,

which should have been cleared up at trial was part of the reason the Court made

9.

their decision as to the Appellant's ability to parent. This is absolutely false and

must be remedied. Finally, the Family Court made a very big issue of the CPS

investigation in Ohio, and it is to be mentioned that the Ohio courts, at the request

of the Richland County Children Services Board dismissed its complaint against

Appellant. At the time of the New York Family Court petition and subsequent

emergency removal of the child and then 2010 trial, there were no charges in Ohio

against Appellant. Any references to Ohio charges leveled against Appellant

should have been disregarded.

The court, at the conclusion of the hearing found that Appellant neglected her

daughter based upon the credible evidence adduced at the trial and the Court's

"observations of respondent's demeanor." A dispositional hearing was held and it

was ordered that the child be released into the custody of Paul Piscitelli, thus taking

away Appellant's custodial rights to her child. The order of protection was

extended.

Appellant appeals the Court's ruling.

10.

ARGUMENTS

Appellant's below arguments are set forth in opposition to the Orders of the

Honorable James F. Quinn, dated June 23, 2010, extending an order of protection

and also finding that Appellant neglected her daughter and placing the daughter

with the father.

Judge Quinn's Order are unsupported by the laws of the State of New York

and must be reversed.

I. Did the lower Court, err when it issued its June 23, 2010 Order of

Protection?

The Order of Protection was vacated on September 27, 2010 and thus,

there is no need to appeal this order.

11.

II. Did the Court, in its June 23 Order, finding Appellant to be neglectful

by a preponderance of the evidence?

Family Court Act 1012(f) CB) provides that a neglected child is one that who

is less than eighteen years of age, whose physical mental or emotional condition has

been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the

failure of his parent or other person legally responsible for his care to exercise a

minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or

guardianship, by unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or a

substantial risk hereof, including the infliction of excessive corporal punishment.

"A party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the

evidence, first, that a child's physical, mental or emotional condition has been

impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual

or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or

caretaker to exercise a minimum of care in providing the child with proper

12.

supervision or guardianship" (Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 2 N.Y.3d 357, 368, 787

N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 (2004).

In this matter, the evidence did not support, that the child's physical, mental

or emotional condition was harmed by the parent. The Court instead focused on the

mother's courtroom demeanor, testimony from a DSS caseworker who did not like

Appellant and the fact that the mother moved from Ohio to New York to avoid any

contact with Child Protective Services. However, there was no allegation of

physical abuse (other than the alleged punching incident that really did not amount

to much and some spanking). There was no testimony that the child was physically

abused, no physical evidence of abuse. In fact, even though the court claimed that

the mother had no plan for the child and did not provide for her, the evidence

showed that the money never left her daughter, took care of her daughter, attempted

to get housing and food for her child. If, for some reason, the mother failed to do a

perfect job, or if the child was not learning as quickly, it was not professionally

determined that the child's lack of success was due to the parenting skills of the

mother. Testimony evidenced that the child may have been slow in her learning

ability and heavy. Because of a lack of expert evaluation and testimony, there was

13.

no conclusion that the cause of the child's problems was due to the mother. The

court took Mr. Piscitelli's testimony about the child's "thriving", a man who had

only been living with the child for less than a year, as proof that the mother was

neglectful in the care of her daughter. This is a reference that is false. The child

merely may have been at the level where she was ready to learn. Her weight may

also have been age related. Also, Mr. Piscitelli, who now had the child, had an

agenda of his own. Furthermore, there was the mother's testimony that the child

stopped speaking after the traumatic injuries she received from falling into the fire

pit (Tr. 3/9/10 pg 14 at 16-18).

Even after the child was initial removed from the mother's care in

September, 2009, Appellant had shown herself to be willing to get help. She

entered parenting classes and performed according to the court's mandates. She

always accepted responsibility for her behavior and tried to be responsible when it

came to her child. Her visits with her child were positive and encouraging. She

traveled long distances to visit with her child.

The court made a very big issue of the fact that Appellant fled Ohio to

escape CPS. She did not flee, however, but simply left to come to New York.

14.

Furthermore, as referenced before in this brief, the charges against Appellant in

Ohio were dismissed on September 16, 2009, prior to the emergency removal

hearing in 2009 and the neglect hearing in 2010. Any reference or role that the

charges played in the Court's decision to find the mother neglectful should be void.

"The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and

management of their child is protected by the 14th Amendment, and does not

evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary

custody of their child to the State". Santoskv v. Kramer 455 US 745 (1982). In In

Re "Female" C — N.Y.S.2d —, 2008 WL 4491822, N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept, 2008, a

mother was ordered to complete a parenting course, obtain housing and

employment. The mother did not obtain the housing, or the employment and only

partially completed the parenting course. The lower court found that the mother

neglected her children and terminated parental rights. The lower court's order was

modified and the termination was reversed. The reviewing court stated that

although the Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected

her children, "it is not clear that the termination of the mother's parental rights is in

the children's best interests."

15.

Parents are not perfect. In this case, Appellant came to the Department of

Social Services in a state where she needed help. The department may not have

appreciated her attitude, but that did not make her an imperfect parent. As to the

"punching" of her child, it is again to be noted that no one immediately took the

child away from the mother after the supposed punch. The child did not fall down,

did not cry out. There were no physical examinations and no evidence of bruises.

The accusation was not substantiated. Children do not get removed from their

custodial parent simply because they are angry. Furthermore, the lack of

immunizations should not serve as the basis for a charge of neglect. Many parents

do not have their child immunized due to serious health risks associated with said

shots.

Again, due to the fact that the court took dismissed charges against Appellant

into consideration, erroneously took into account charges of neglect against

Timothy G. (again, that was not her, but her mother), this ruling of neglect should

be reversed and the child should be returned to the mother. The court did not take

into account the best interests of the child. They placed the child with the father,

who before this time, never petitioned the court for custody, let along, visitation.

16.

The court found the Appellant's demeanor in court to be evidence of her abilities as

a parent. This should not have been the case. Appellant acted emotionally because

she felt her rights were being trampled upon and her daughter forcibly removed

from her care. It was an extremely stressful time in her life and should not have

been the basis for a neglect find.

Appellant deserved a chance to mother her child and allow the child to

recover from her traumatic injuries with the person who had been parenting her for

the last five years.

Additionally, in order to establish neglect, it must be established that the

parent(s) failed, for a period of more than one year following the date the child

came into the care of an authorized agency, to substantially and continuously or

repeatedly fail to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, although

physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the agency's diligent

efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (Social Services Law §

384-b (7)(a); Matter of Star Leslie W.. 63 NY2d 136; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d

368). In this matter, petitioner has not established neglect; in fact, Appellant did

attended parenting classes and regularly visited her daughter.

17.

Social Services Law 384-b, the Legislature has placed primacy on the child

remaining with the natural parent because it found both that the child's needs are

usually best met in the natural home and that the parents are generally entitled to

bring up their own children. The State's first obligation is to help the family stay

together. See Matter of Joyce T., 65 NY2d 39,47. In this matter, the authorized

agency did not show that they encouraged or tried to reunite the mother and child.

Instead, they evidenced a strong dislike for the mother. They took a dismissed

charge in Ohio and applied it to a New York case. They confused mother and

daughter and accused Appellant of being neglectful of her first child. They did

absolutely nothing to reunify mother and child.

It is to be stressed that it was not proved, by a preponderance of the

evidence that the child's emotional, physical or mental condition was impaired or in

imminent danger of being impaired by the mother. The court looked at a few days

in the child's life and decided that the mother was neglectful. Petitioner did not

prove that the child was in physical danger. Petitioner did not prove that the child's

emotional or mental health was impaired. In fact, it is to be stressed that there was

no formal diagnosis or expert testimony of any medical or psychiatric doctor.

18.

There was no medical adjudication that the mother had any emotional problems.

There was no medical adjudication that the child was impaired or in imminent

danger of being impaired. And, although the court's findings should be given

deference, it should only be given said deference if the findings have a substantial

basis in the record. "The Family Court's finding's are entitled to great deference

especially where the critical evidence is testimony, in light of the court's ability to

assess the witnesses' credibility, and should generally not be disturbed absent a

conclusion that they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record" (see Matter of

Nathaniel TT.. 265 A.D.2d 611, 614; Matter of Brandi U.. 47 A.D. 3d 1103, 1104

(2008); In this case, the court looked at dismissed charges, mistaken identity,

courtroom demeanor without expert testimony or doctor's evaluation and made the

wrong decision.

Wherefore, based on the above this Court should reverse the lower court

Order and immediately return the child to the mother, or in the alternative, have the

matter remitted to the Family Court for a new hearing on the issue of neglect.

19.

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, based on the above this Court should reverse the lower court

Order and immediately return the child to the mother, or in the alternative, have the

matter remitted to the Family Court for a new hearing on the issue of neglect.

Dated: 2nd day of March, 2011Centerport,NY11721

Gina M. Scelta, Esq.Attorney for AppellantP.O. Box 407Centerport, NY 11721631-327-6196

20.



2010-06769


STATEMENT UNDER CPLR 5531

1. The Family Court Docket number is: NN-16863-09.

2. The full names of the original parties are as set forth above. There have been no

changes.

3. The proceedings were commenced in Family Court, Suffolk County.

4. The proceeding was commenced by petition for neglect dated September 17,

2009 by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services. The petition sought

determination of neglect with regard to Appellant.

5. The appeal is taken from the Orders of the Honorable James F. Quinn, both

dated June 23,2010, respectively, docketed as noted above.

6. The appeal is made on the original record. The appendix method is being used.

11.

7. The representatives of the parties to the underlying action are:

Gina M. Scelta, Esq.Attorney for AppellantP.O. Box 407Centerport,NY11721

Michele Pilo, Esq.Law Guardian320 Carleton AvenueCentral Islip, NY 11722

Jennifer J. Haas, Esq.Suffolk County Attorney's Office400 Carleton AvenueCentral Islip, NY 11722

Taylor Walker, Esq.Attorney for Paul Piscitelli, Interested Party260 Jericho TurnpikeWestbury,NY11590

Dated: 2nd day of March 2011Centerport,NY11721

Gina M. Scelta, Esq.Attorney for AppellantP.O. Box 407Centerport,NY11721631-327-6196

in.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR §670.10.3(f)

The foregoing brief was prepared on a computer. A proportionally spaced typefacewas used as follows:

Name of typeface: Times New RomanPoint Size: 14Line Spacing: Double

The total number of words in the brief, inclusive of point headings and footnotesand exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, table of citations, proof ofservice, certificate of compliance, or any authorized addendum containing statutes,rules, regulations, etc., is 3670.

IV.

FAMILY COURT: STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF SUFFOLK

In the Matter of

WINONA PISCITELLI

A Child under Eighteen Years of AgeAlleged to be Neglected by

WINONA PALMIOTTI,

Respondent-Appellant.

-X

NOTICE OF APPEALDocket No.: #: N-l6863-09

-X

S I R S :

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Respondent-Appellant, Winona Palmiotti, hereby

appeals to the Appellate Division, Second Department, from the order of the Honorable James F.

Quinn, Family Court, State of New York, County of Suffolk, under Docket Number N-l 6863-09,

dated and entered in the in the office of the Clerk of the Family Court on June 23, 2010 and from

each and every part thereof.

Dated: June 24, 2010

, ESQ.ppellant

A54Attomey^732Smithtown,NY 11787(631)366-3555

TO: CLERK OF THE COURTFAMILY COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY

SUFFOLK COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICEBy: Jennifer J. Haas, Esq.Attorney for Petitioner400 Carleton AvenueCentral Islip, NY 11722

MICT^T,EPILO,ESQ.Law c. ̂ ardian320 Carleton Avenue, Suite 3800Central Islip, NY 11722

TAYLOR WALKER, ESQ.Attorney for Paul Piscitelli - Interested Party260 Jericho TurnpikeWestbury,NY 11590

_II ""'No. O1PR4960557

Form A - Request for

In the Matter of

WINONA PISCITELLI

A Child under Eighteen Years of Age Alleged

to be Neglected by

3£iepeu.ju.iM-*v~

Intervention - Civil

?-'&, ?.of Appea'

- -••;•;• -v';'r.DlVlSK

PALMIOTTI,

Civil Action|q CPLRarticlej

Respondent.

rO Special Proceeding OtherQ HabeaJ -rnus Proceedin

[S AppealQ original Proc

Nature of

-0! Freedom of Information

Q 2 Human Rights

O 3 Licenses04 public Employment

05 Social Services

Q 6 Other

Venture

2 Business

Q 3 ReligiousQ 4 Not-for-Profit

5 Other

_ 1 Brokerage02 Commercial Paper

Q 3 Construction

Q 4 Employment

Q 5 Insurance

Q 6 Real Property

Q 7 SalesQ 8 Secured

Q 9 Other

Q 1 AdoptionQ 2 Attorney's Fees

n 3 Children - Support04 Children-Custody/Visitation

05 Children-Terminate Paren

al Rights•6 Children - Abuse/Neglect

QL7 Children-JD/PINS

O 8 Equitable Distribution

Q 9 Exclusive Occupancy of

Residence

Q 10 Expert's FeesO , 1 Maintenance/Alimony

Q 1 2 Marital Status

Q 13 Paternity014 Spousal Support

Q 1 5 Other

[ Es Miscellaneous -->•Q 1 Constructive Trust

Q 2 Debtor & Creditor

Q 3 Declaratory Judgment

Q 4 Election LawQ 5 Notice of Claim

Q 6 Other

______Q 1 DisciplineO 2 Jail Time Calculation

Q 3 Parole

Q 4 Other

Q 2 Determine Title

Q 3 Easements\, Environmental

; Liens5 Mortgages

7 Partition

8 Rentg Taxation

O 10 Zoning

Q 11 Other

Q CPLR 5704 Review

LJ 1Imprisonment

O 2 Conversion

Q 3 Defamation

-\ 4 Fraud3 5 Intentional Infliction of

Emotional DistressD 6 Interference with Contract

3 7 Malicious Prosecution/

Abuse of Process

Q 8 Malpractice

Q 9 Negligence

Q 10 NuisanceQ 11 Products Liability

Q 1 2 Strict Liability013 Trespass and/or Waste

Q 14 Other

Q 1 City of Mount VernonCharter §1 120, 127-f, or

j 129Q 2 Eminent Domain Proced-

ure Law I 207Q 3 General Municipal Law

5 712i Labor Law § 2205 Public Service Law 55 128

or 170

5 Other

. Wills &Jlstates:,.:.: '•

Q 1 Accounting

Q 2 DiscoveryQ 3 Probate/Administration

D 4 Trusts

Q 5 Other

Form A - RADI - Civil

I I01PR4960557

'm^gjjjgjjjjijjjjgjjjgjg ^MMMMnraggMHrr̂ mr"~*m

Paper Appealed From (check one only):

Q Amended Decree !Q Determination XKOrderQ Amended Judgment Q Finding Q Order & Judgment.Q Amended Qrder Q Interlocutory Decree Q Partial DecreeQ. Decision Q Interlocutory Judgment Q Resettled DecreeQ Decree Q Judgment Q Resettled Judgment

Court: Family

Dated: june 23,

Judge (name in full):

Stage: S Interlocutory

2010

James F. Quinn

Q Final Q Post-Final

Q Resettled ©rderQ. RulingQ ether (specify):

County: Suffolk

Entered: june 23 , 2010

Index No. : : : N- 1 6863-09

Trial: Q Yes Q No If Yes: Q Jury Q Non-Jury

Are any unperfected appeals pending in this case? Q Yes SX No. If yes, do you intend to perfect the appeal or appealscovered by the annexed notice of appeal with the prior appeals? Q Yes Q No, Set forth the Appellate Division CauseNumber(s) of any prior, pending, unperfected appeals:

Original Proceeding

Commenced by: Q Order to Show Cause 3 Notice of Petition Q Writ of Habeas Corpus Date Filed: 9/17/09

Statute authorizing commencement of proceeding in the Appellate Division:

Proceeding Transferred Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g)

Court: County:

Judge (name in full):

Court:

Order of Transfer Date:

CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order

County:

Judge (name in full): Dated:

Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues

Description: If an appeal, briefly describe the paper appealed from. If the appeal is from an order, specify the relief requestedand whether the motion was granted or denied. If an original proceeding commenced in this court or transferred pursuant toCPLR 7804(g), briefly describe the object of the proceeding. If an application under CPLR 5704, briefly describe the nature ofthe ex parte order to be reviewed.

The appellant appeals from a decision and dispositional order aftera neglect trial.

Amount: If an appeal is from a money judgment, specify the amount awarded.Issues: Specify the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, or application for CPLR 5704 review.

Issues Continued:

IB~for'. Additional Appeal Jrifoma

Party InformationInstructions; Fill in the name' of each party to the action or proceeding, one Examples of a party's original status include: plaintiff, defendant,name per line. If this form is to be filed for an appeal, indicate the status of the petitioner, respondent, claimant, defendant third-party plaintiff, third-partyparty in the court of original instance and his, her, or its status in this court, if defendant, and intervenor. Examples of a party's Appellate Division statusany. If this fo/m is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in include; appellant, respondent, appellant-respondent, respondent-appellantonly the party's mm a and his, her, or its status in this court. petitioner, and intervenor.

No. Party Name Original Status Appellate Division Status

Winona Palmiotti Respondent Appellant

Suffolk County Attorney Petitioner Respondent

Michele Pilo, Esq. Law Guardian Law Guardian

Paul Piscitelli Interested Party Interested Party

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No. O1PR4960557

Attorney intorrnauonInstructions: Fill in the names "ie attorneys or firms of attorneys for the provided,respective parties. If this form is filed with the notice of petition or order In errt that a litigant represents herself or himselfj the boxto show cause by Which a speL,^. proceeding is to be commenced in the marked "Pro: Se. ,nust be checked and the appropriate information for thatAppellate Division,, only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be litigant must be supplied in the spaces provided.

Attorney/Firm Name: j. Gary Waldvogel, Esq.

Address: 732 Smithtown By-Pass, Suite A54

City; Smithtown State: NY Zip; 11787 Telephone No.: 631

Attorney Type: Q Retained 05 Assigned Q Government Q Pro Se Q

Party Or Parties Represented (set forth party numberls) from table above or from Form CK 1

Attorney/Firm Name: Suffolk County Attorney

-366-3553

Pro Hac Vice

Address: 400 Carleton Avenue

City: Central Islip State: NY Zip: 11722 Telephone No.: 631-853-5761

Attorney Type: Q Retained Q Assigned XXGovernment Q Pro Se Q

Party or Parties Represented (set forth party numberls) from table above or from Form C): 2

Pro Hac Vice

i

Attorney/Firm Name: Michele Pilo, Esq.

Address: 320 Carleton Avenue, Suite 3800

City: Centra l Islip State: NY Zip: 11722 Telephone No.: 631-439-2450Attorney Type: Q Retained 13 Assigned Q Government Q Pro Se Q Pro Hac Vice

Party Or Parties Represented (set forth party numberls] from table above or from Form C}'.

Attorney/Firm Name: Taylor Walker, Esq.

Address: 260 Jer icho T u r n p i k e

City: Wes tbury State: NY Zip: 11590 Telephone No.: 516-334-440C

Attorney Type: Retained Q Assigned Q Government Q Pro Se Q Pro Hac Vice

Party or Parties Represented (set forth party numberls] from table above or from Form C}'.

Attorney/Firm Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip: Telephone No.:

Attorney Type: Q Retained Q Assigned Q Government Q Pro Se Q Pro Hac Vice

Party Or Parties Represented (set forth party numberls] from table above or from Form CK

Attorney/Firm Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip: Telephone No.:

Attorney Type: Q Retained Q Assigned Q Government O Pro Se O Pro Hac Vice

Party or Parties Represented (set forth party numberls] from table above or from Form CK

-§{!(Z2Wjm:e7°-ymiyis.ion:

:a5%i*;;A,i-.v=r - ? • • • - ^ . ; < . . . - . . ,-.;..,. ? '.•- , - • - - ...- -.--.-'7 ..- . V j - ; . - -, .:-7'~->W .̂1Sgi3i*'SiS '̂ V"--1.

iKopyered'in the;notice:0f;ap(?eal;:or:;order,grsi' &'-ff,'-^-^^-:

•" -i : "«Âv-;••••>^•: .^- ' j :::-••' '--^ -^ i •^v- ' -mmm^. 'y^ f^^: -,---—.,.

I I ' JNo O1PR4960557

T 471 —Nonce of App«l-

V k.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, fiat tie aiove named

) NOTICE OF APPEALo I

\

from the

of the Clerk of said Court

on the 3UP^- day of

and horn each and every part thereof.

Dated: •••-. ..ÔJî _.-, , ,.Yours, etc.,

Attorney(s) forand Appellant

To

form iu-1

F.C.A. §§ 1017,1033-b, 1040,1044,1046,1051,1052,1054,1057,1059

P R E S E N T :Hon. JAMES F. QUINN

Judge

In the Matter of

(Child Protective-Order ofFact-Finding, Disposition)without placement [9/09]

At a term, Part 8 of the Family Court of the Stateof New York, held in and for the County ofSuffolk at El Central Islip, Q Riverhead, NewYork, on &

- Li-05}

CINNo.DocketNo.

(A) Child(ren) Under Eighteen Years of AgeAlleged to be Q Abused Q Neglected by

Respondent(s)

ORDER OF FACT-FINDINGAND DISPOSITION WITHOUTPLACEMENTQAbuse C&NeglectQ Severe Abuse Q Repeated Abuse

Hearing Date:

NOTICE: WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THISORDER MAY RESULT IN COMMITMENT TO JAIL FOR A TERM NOT TOEXCEED SIX MONTHS.

IF YOUR CHILD IS PLACED IN FOSTER CARE, YOU MAY LOSE YOUR RIGHTSTO YOUR CHILD AND YOUR CHILD MAY BE ADOPTED WITHOUT YOURCONSENT.

IF YOUR CHILD STAYS IN FOSTER CARE FOR 15 OF THE MOST RECENT 22MONTHS, THE AGENCY MAY BE REQUIRED BY LAW TO FILE A PETITION TOTERMINATE YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS AND MAY FILE BEFORE THE END OFTHE 15-MONTH PERIOD.

IF SEVERE OR REPEATED ABUSE IS PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING=EYH1MCES__THIS FINDING MAY CONSTITUTE THE BASIS TO TERMINATEYOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS.

THE NEXT COURT DATE IS [specify date]:

Form lU-iu V Y / > _ > I v- —

The petition(s) ox ^ffolk County Department of Social Service under Article 10 of the FamilyCourt Act, sworn to on [specify date]: tf~_Y\'Cft , having been fc in this court alleging that theabove-named respondent(s) [check applicable box(es)]:P-neglected Q abused Q severely abused Q repeatedly abused the above-named child(ren); and

Notice having been duly given to the respondent(s) pursuant to section 1036 or 1037 of theFamily Court Act; and

tZr-Respondent(s) [specify]: lMMCL, irtlidfa having:0-appeared H-with counsel Q without counsel Q waived counsel Q not appeared ;

Q Respondent(s) [specify]: _ having:Q appeared Q with counsel Q without counsel Q waived counsel Q not appeared ;

before this court to answer said petition; and

Respondent [specify]: (/J{/)CO!& $tyy4TtJ6$t_ _ having [specify]:Q voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly admitted in open court that (s)he committed

the following act(s) [specify]:

Q The same acts as set forth in the petition(s), dated [specify]: _ __

Q Misused drugs and/or alcohol to the extent that respondent(s) lost self-control ofhis/her actions and was therefore unable to properly supervise the child(ren). On or about,

respondent used Q cocaine Q heroin Q marijuana Qand/or Q alcohol excessively and to the point of intoxication.

Q Inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon the child(ren). On or about,respondent —

Q See additional facts, below.

Q Engaged in violent acts in the home or in the presence of the child(ren), describedbelow, which respondent(s) acknowledge(s) has caused the child(ren)'s physical, mentalor emotional condition to have been impaired or created an imminent danger of becomingimpaired and, that the actual or threatened harm to the child(ren) is a consequence of thefailure of the respondent to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the childwith proper supervision or guardianship.

Q Other [specify]:

the allegations of the petition and the matter having duly come on for a fact-finding'•W\^=^^^^:^^s==^^^=^^^='=^~^=-=-^=^

Q failed to appear and the matter having duly come on for a fact-finding hearing by inquest beforethis court;

Q voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly consented to the entry of an order of fact-findingpursuant to Family Court Act §1051(a), and the petitioner, law guardian and all other partieshaving consented to the entry of such order of fact-finding as well; and

Form 10-10 W/OP (SuttoiK- v i u . u j » a5~ _

(Respondent [ ify]: _having [specify]:Q voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly admitted L -pen court that (s)he committed

the following act(s) [specify]:

Q The same acts as set forth in the petition(s), dated [specify]:

Q Misused drugs and/or alcohol to the extent that respondent(s) lost self-control ofhis/her.actions and was therefore unable to properly supervise the child(ren). On or about,

respondent used Q cocaine Q heroin Q marijuana Q . _and/or Q alcohol excessively and to the point of intoxication.

Q Inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon the child(ren). On or about, .'respondent '

Q See additional facts, below.

Q Engaged in violent acts in the home or in the presence of the child(ren), describedbelow, which respondent(s) acknowledge(s) has caused the child(ren)'s physical, mentalor emotional condition to have been impaired or created an imminent danger of becomingimpaired and, that the actual or threatened harm to the child(ren) is a consequence of thefailure of the respondent to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the childwith proper supervision or guardianship.

Q Other [specify]:

Q denied the allegations of the petition and the matter having duly come on for a fact-findinghearing before this Court;

Q failed to appear and the matter having duly come on for a fact-finding hearing by inquest beforethis Court;

Q voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly consented to the entry of an order of fact-findingpursuant to Family Court Act §1051 (a), and the petitioner, law guardian and all other partieshaving consented to the entry of such order of fact-finding as well); and

INTERVENORSAnd where the paftent(s) of the above-named child(ren) (is) (are) not (a) respondent(s),the parent(s), ^ftiaJ TlM fit J'JuUjL (was) (were)

IB-present at the hearing and participated as interested party-intervenor(s);Q duly served with a copy of the petition but did not appear;Q (was) (were) not served with a copy of the petition and did not appear;

Q although every reasonable effort had been made to effect service;

And the following other interested party-intervenors were present and participated in the hearing[specify name(s) and relationship(s) to child(ren)]:

Form 10-10 W70P (Suffolk - vlU.u; rage -,And the matter havmg duly come on to be heard, and the abo^ amed persons appearing having

been given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the court hu.ing considered the position andinformation provided by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services.

[Required in cases involving Native-American children; check if applicable ]:Q And the following having been duly notified [check applicable box(es)]:

Q parent/custodian Q tribe/nation Q United States Secretary of the Interior;And the tribe/nation having: Q appeared and participated as a party; Q appeared and declined to assumejurisdiction; Q appeared and requested transfer of jurisdiction; Q not appeared;

And the Court, after [check box]:Si hearing the proof and testimony offered in relation to the caseQ accepting the admission by Respondent(s) [specify]:

and having found [check applicable box(es) and specify act(s) of child abuse and/or neglect found, ifany]:

3- by a "Preponderance of the Evidence" that respondent(s) committed the following acts constitutingE^child neglect Q child abuse, pursuant to Q FCA §1012(e)(i) Q FCA §1012(e)(ii) Q FCA§1012(e)(iii) Q PL § [specify act(s), including the name(s) of the child(ren),the penal law section, if applicable, and the grounds for the determination]:

Q Court finds the acts committed are the same as set forth above in the admission.Q Court finds the acts committed are the same as set forth in the petition(s).1̂ . Court finds the acts committed are as set forth in the written memorandum attached hereto.Q Court finds the acts committed are as follows;

[Applicable only where severe or repeated abuse was alleged and Respondent was so advised]:

Q by "Clear and Convincing Evidence" that respondent(s) committed the following acts constitutingQ severe abuse Q repeated abuse, pursuant to Q FCA §1012(e)(i) Q FCA §1012(e)(ii) Q FCA§1012(e)(iii) Q PL § , acts that may form the basis to terminate parental rights[specify act(s), the name(s) of the child(ren), the penal law section, if applicable, and the grounds forthe determination]:

Q Court finds the acts committed are the same as set forth above in the admission.Q Court finds the acts committed are the same as set forth in the petition(s).Q Court finds the acts committed are as set forth in the written memorandum attached hereto.Q Court finds the acts committed are as follows:

And the matter having thereafter duly come on before the court for a dispositional hearing;

And the child having been represented by a law guardian and the Court having considered the position ofthe child regarding the dispositional plan;

The court, after having made an examination and inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case and intothe surroundings, conditions, and capacities of the persons involved, finds and determines the following:

Form 10-10 W/OP (Suffolk-vl0.0) Page 5

i. ORDER OF FACT-FINDING OR DISMISSAL:

ADJUDGED that facts sufficient to sustain the petition herein l^have Q have not beenestablished, upon the: Q Admission of Respondent Q Consent of Respondent H Fact-Finding decisionattached hereto; and it is hereby found that the

J8^ Child(ren) [specify]: 2$ named in caption Q (is)(are):Q^neglectedQ abusedQ severely abusedQ repeatedly abused, as defined in section 1012 of the Family Court Act;

(Child(ren) [specify]: Q named in caption Q (is)(are):Q neglectedQ abusedQ severely abusedQ repeatedly abused, as defined in section 1012 of the Family Court Act;)

II. ORDER OF DISPOSITION [Check all applicable boxres)!:

A. Released to Parent pursuant to F.C.A. § 1054BORDERED, that the child(ren) 0 all named in caption D(is) (are) released to the custody of theQ Respondent(s) 2kNfon-Respondent Parent,G3~\vith Q without supervision by Suffolk County Department of Social Services;

Q upon the "terms and conditions" set forth belowQ upon the performance of the following supervisory actions by the child protectiveagency, social services official or duly authorized agency [specify]:

B. Supervision of Respondent, pursuant to F.C.A. § 1057

^-ORDERED, that the Respondent(s) herein (is) (are) placed under the supervision ofthe Suffolk County Department of Social Services upon the "terms and conditions" set forthbelow;

C. Suspended Judgment, pursuant to F.C.A. § 1053

Q ORDERED, that judgment against the Respondent(s) is hereby suspended until[specify date]: _ upon the "terms and conditions" set forth below;

"TERMS AND CONDITIONS"

QED£R£EL.thaLthe-pareiLt(s) or other_pers_Qri(s)_legally responsible for the care of the child(ren)~_take the following steps to comply with the service plan: Such person(s)~herein (is) (are) placed under the~supervision of Suffolk County Department of Social Services pursuant to the Family Court Act until

Such person(s) shall permit DSS to monitor compliance with the following terms andconditions and receive reports from individuals and agencies administering such programs and suchperson(s) shall abide by the following terms and conditions(s) [specify - see next page]:1

1 See 22 N.Y.C.R.R. §205.83.

Form 10-1OW/OP (Suffolk-vl0.0) Page 6CONDITIO OF SUPERVISION

1. Refrain from or eliminate specified acts or conditions, found at the fact-finding hearing, to haveconstituted, or to have caused, neglect or abuse, and cooperate with the Department of SocialServices in remedying these specified acts or omissions found at the fact-finding hearing to haveconstituted, or to have caused, the neglect or abuse;

2. Cooperate in obtaining and accepting medical treatment, psychiatric diagnosis and treatment,alcoholism or drug abuse treatment, employment or counseling services, or child guidance, andpermit the Department of Social Services to obtain information from any person, school or agencyfrom whom the respondent or the child is receiving or was directed to receive services, treatment orcounseling by signing releases to the Department of Social Services;

3. Meet with the Department of Social Services caseworkers alone and with the child(ren) whendirected to do so by that agency and permit the caseworkers to fully inspect your residence;

4. Report to the Department of Social Services when directed to do so by that agency and attend allplanning conferences;

5. Cooperate with the Department of Social Services in arranging for and allowing visitation in thehome or other place;

6. Notify the Department of Social Services immediately of any change of residence oremployment or change in the occupants of your residence;

The following additional conditions apply [as checked]:

^ 7. Obtain a mental health evaluation at the direction of the Department of Social Services andfollow all recommended treatment.

Q 8. Obtain a substance abuse evaluation at the direction of the Department of Social Services andfollow all recommended treatment.

Q 9. Attend and participate in psychotherapy/counseling at the direction of the Department ofSocial Services and follow all recommended treatment.

Q 10. Attend and participate in a substance abuse rehabilitation program at the direction of theDepartment of Social Services and follow all recommended treatment, including drug testing.

& 11. Attend and participate in a parenting skills program at the direction of the Department ofSocial Services and follow all recommended treatment.

Q 12. Attend and participate in a homemaking skills program at the direction of the Department ofSocial Services and follow all recommended treatment.

Q 13. Attend and participate in a domestic violence prevention program at the direction of theDepartment of Social Services and follow all recommended treatment.

Q 14. Obtain suitable and safe housing and permit the Department of Social Services to inspect thepremises.

O 15. Attend and participate in a sex offenders treatment program at the direction of theDepartment of Social Services and follow all recommended treatment.

D 16. Attend and participate injhe Suffolk Family Treatment Court program and follow alldirections of the treatment team.

Q 17.

Form 10-10 W/OP (Suffolk -vl 0.0) Page 7D. Order ^rotection

BORDERED, that &- Respondent U(/UW^ f l l t o t f t Q both Respondents (is)(are)required to comply with the terms and conditions specified in the order of protection separatelyissued and incorporated by reference herein;

E. Visitation Plan

^-ORDERED, DSS shall provide ^Respondent(s) jdiMMfa ¥&M(dltl D Non-Respondent Parent, _ with visitation with the child(ren) as follows:[Check applicable box(es)]S^ Supervised by the Department of Social Services or such other person or agency approved by DSS.Q Supervised by _ _______Q Unsupervised at DSS discretion.Q Under conditions as DSS shall deem appropriate.Q Weekly for _ hour(s) per visit.Q Bi-weekly for _ hour(s) per visit.a _U There shall be no visitation; the court finds that visitation will be detrimental to the bestinterests of the child(ren).

The parent(s) and other person(s) legally responsible for the child(ren)'s care shall visit in accordancewith the plan. The plan may be modified, without court order, upon the consent of all parties and the lawguardian;

Q ORDERED, that Petitioner shall provide the following sibling(s) [specify]: _with visitation with the child(ren) as follows [describe visitation plan]: _ _ _

F. Progress Reports

ORDERED that, not later than 60 days prior to the expiration of this order, the Commissioner of SocialServices shall report to the Court, the law guardian, the parties, their attorneys and the non-respondentparent(s) on the status and circumstances of the child(ren) and family and any actions contemplated, ifany, by the agency with respect to the children) and family; and it is further;Q ORDERED, that DSS shall make a progress report to the court, the parties and the law guardian onthe implementation of this order on .

(ORDERED

ENTER

Dated:

THIS ORDER MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDERBY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING OF THEORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, OR 30 DAYS AFTERSERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE LAW GUARDIAN UPON THEAPPELLANT,WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.Check applicable box:

Q Order mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed]:Q Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom given]:

F.C.A §§ 446, 551, 656, 842 & 1050

ORINo:NY051023J

NYSID No: At a term of the Family Court of the State of New York,held in and for the County of Suffolk, at Suffolk CountyFamily Court 400 Carleton Avenue, Central Islip, NY11722-9076, on June 23, 2010

PRESENT: Honorable James F. Quinn

In the Matter of a NEGLECT Proceeding

Winona Piscitelli (DOB: 07/06/2005),

Child/ren under Eighteen Years of AgeAlleged to be Neglected By

Winona Palmiotti (DOB: 04/07/1973),Respondent.

File # 106532Docket* NN-16863-09

Order Of Protection

Both parties present in court

NOTICE: YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY SUBJECT YOU TO MANDATORYARREST AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, WHICH MAY RESULT IN YOUR INCARCERATION FOR UP TOSEVEN YEARS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, AND/OR MAY SUBJECT YOU TO FAMILY COURT PROSECUTION

AND INCARCERATION FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

A petition under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, having been filed on September 17, 2009 in this Court and afterhearing, and Winona Palmiotti having been present in Court and advised of the issuance and contents of this Order,

Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that Winona Palmiotti (DOB: 04/07/1973) observe the following conditions of

behavior:

[01] Stay away from:[B] the home of Winona Piscitelli (DOB: 07/06/2005);[C] the school of Winona Piscitelli (DOB: 07/06/2005);

[99] Observe such other conditions as are necessary to further the purposes of protection: Respondent shall have nocontact with the child Winona Piscitelli (DOB: 07/06/2005) except for contact/visitation supervised by DSS or a

[99] Observe such other conditions as are necessary to further the purposes of protection: This order supersedes andreplaces the order of protection previously issued under this docket number.;

Page: 2Docket No: NN-16863-09

GFSa

It is further ordered that this Order Of Protection shall remain in force until and including June 23,2011;

Dated: June 23,2010 ENTER

Honorable James

The Family Court Act provides that presentation of a copy of this order of protection to any police officer or peace officeracting pursuant to his or her special duties authorizes, and sometimes requires, the officer to arrest a person who is alleged to haveviolated its terms and to bring him or her before the court to face penalties authorized by law.

Federal law requires that this order is effective outside, as well as inside, New York State. It must be honored andenforced by state and tribal courts, including courts of a state, the District of Columbia, a commonwealth, territory or possession ofthe United States, if the person restrained by the order is an intimate partner of the protected party and has or will be affordedreasonable notice and opportunity to be heard in accordance with state law sufficient to protect due process rights (18 U.S.C.§§2265, 2266).

It is a federal crime to:• cross state lines to violate this order or to stalk, harass or commit domestic violence against an intimate partner or family member;• buy, possess, or transfer a handgun, rifle, shotgun, or other firearm or ammunition while this Order remains in effect (Note: thereis a limited exception for military or law enforcement officers but only while they are on duty) ; and• buy, possess or transfer a handgun, rifle, shotgun or other firearm or ammunition after a conviction of a domesticviolence-related crime involving the use or attempted use of physical force or a deadly weapon against an intimate partner orfamily member, even after this Order has expired (18 U.S.C. §§922(g)(8), 922(g)(9), 2261, 2261 A, 2262).

PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER MUST BE TAKENWITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE DATE OFMAILING OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, OR 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTYOR THE LAW GUARDIAN UPON THE APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.

Check Applicable Box(es):[X] Party against whom order was issued was advised in Court of issuance and contents of Order

[ ] Order personally served in Court upon party against whom order was issued

PC] Service directed by Other[_. j [Modifications_Qr; extensions _o_nlv]:..Qrder. mailed, on {specify date and to whom mailed]:[ ] Warrant issued for party against whom order was issued [specify date]:_


In the Matter of Winona P. (Anonymous).Suffolk County Department of Social Services,Petitioner-Respondent; Winona P.(Anonymous),Appellant; Paul P. (Anonymous), nonparty-Respondent


TO: CHIEF CLERKSuffolk County Family Court400 Carleton AvenueCentral Islip, New York 11722

AppellateDiv. No.

2010-067682010-06769

SUBPOENA DUCESTECUM

WE COMMAND YOU, that all business and excuses being laid aside, you forward to:CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT,45 Monroe Place, Brooklyn, New York 11201 all papers constituting your original record in theabove-captioned matter.

Failure to comply with this subpoena is punishable as a contempt of Court and shall makeyou liable to the person on whose behalf this subpoena was issued for a penalty not to exceedfifty dollars and all damages sustained by reason of your failure to comply

By Order of the Court, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.9(d)(2)

Date: 3rd day of March, 2011Centerport, New York

Gina M. Scelta, Esq, Attorney for AppellantPO Box 407Centerport, New York 11721(631)327-6196

a-3



2010-06769

(Fam. Ct Docket No. NN-16863-09)

CERTIFICATE UNDER CPLR 2105

I, Gina M. Scelta, Esq., attorney for Appellant, Winona Palmiotti, do hereby

certify, pursuant to CPLR 2105 that the copies of the record filed with this Court in

the brief contains copies of documents personally compared by me with the

originals on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Family Court, Suffolk County,

New York and found to be true and complete copies of these originals.

Dated: 2nd day of March, 2011Centerport, NY11721

Gina M. Scelta, Esq.Attorney for AppellantP.O. Box 407Centerport, NY 11721631-327-6196

b-i

At a term of the Family Court of the Stateof NF vork, held in and for the Countyof Su .k, at Suffolk County FamilyCourt, 400 Carleton Avenue, CentralIslip, NY 11722-9076, on September 27,2010

PRESENT: Hon. James F. Quinn

In the Matter of File#: 106532Docket #: NN-16863-09

Winona Piscitelli (DOB: 7/6/2005),ORDER VACATING ORDER OF

A Child under Eighteen Years of Age PROTECTIONAlleged to be Neglected by

Winona Palmiotti,Respondent.

An Order of Protection having been entered by this Court pursuant to Article 10 of the Family CourtAct, and

Now, after re-examination and inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case and into thesurroundings, conditions and capacities of the persons involved,

It is hereby

ORDERED, that all orders of protection issued under this docket number are hereby vacated and thepetition filed on September 17, 2009 is hereby withdrawn.

The Order of Protection is still in the possession of the Petitioner.

Should the Petitioner attempt to have the Order of Protection executed, this order should be producedfor the Peace Officer to certify that the Order of Protection has been vacated.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER MUSTBE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYSFROM THE DATE OF MAILING OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, OR 30DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE CHILD'S ATTORNEY UPON THE APPELLANT,WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.

Dated: September 27, 2010 ENTER

D Order mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed]:D Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom given]:_

Petitioner: Respondent:

Suffolk County Child Protective Services Winona Palmiotti3455 Veteran's Memorial Highway 218 Coul StreetRonkonkoma, NY 11779 Mansfield, OH 44902

At a Term of the Family Court ofthe State of New York,, held inand for the County of Nassau, at120C Old Country Road. Westbury,New York, on June 28, 1989

PRESENT:HON. SALVATCRE R. MOSCA

JUDGE

-xIn the Matter of a Proceeding forCustody under Article 6 of theFamily Court Act

WJ.NONA GRANT,,

-against-

WINONA MAR ZOCCC,

Petiti oner,

Index No. V 636-89

TEMPORARY ORDEROF CUSTODY

Respondent.-x

The above-named petitioner having moved this court byOrder to Show Cause,- dated May I, 1989, for an order pursuant tosection 651 of the Fe.nuly Court Act awarding custody of theminor child, TIMOTHY M. GRANT, born January 30, 1989; and

The matter having duly come on to be heard beforethis court; and the petitioner having not having appeared; c.r.dthe respondent having appeared by attorney; and the Lav,7

Guardian. Elihu Hendon, having appeared for the child; and SusanV. Jelaso from the Law Department having been present; and goodcause therefor havinq been shown.- it is hereby

ORDERED.- that pending further order of this court,,custody of the child,- TIMOTHY K. GRANT, is placed with thepetitioner, WINCNA GRANT.

ENTER:

, /• rxJudce of the Familv Cou



2010-06769

(Fam. Ct Docket No. NN-16863-09)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Gina M. Scelta, Esq., certify that I have served the Appellant's

Memorandum of Law, Statement Under CPLR 5531, and Appendix on the County

Attorney and the Attorney for the Child, and the attorney for Paul Piscitelli, by

depositing same with the US Postal Service in an envelope, on March 3rd, 2011,

with the correct first class prepaid postage affixed, and respectively addressed to the

attorneys at the following address:

Michele Pilo, Esq.Law Guardian320 Carleton AvenueCentral Islip, NY 11722

Jennifer J. Haas, Esq.Suffolk County Attorney's Office400 Carleton AvenueCentral Islip, NY 11722

Taylor Walker, Esq.Attorney for Paul Piscitelli, Interested Party260 Jericho TurnpikeWestbury,NY11590

Dated: 3rd day of March, 2011Centerport,NY11721

Gina M. Scelta, Esq.Attorney for AppellantP.O. Box 407Centerport,NY11721631-327-6196

appellant memorandum 1

Documents

time appellant

child winona piscitelli

appellant paul

appellant left

supreme court

lower court

matter of winona

family court act