Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Appellant Memorandum 1
Appellant Memorandum 1
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1
ISSUES ON APPEAL 2
ARGUMENTS 11
CONCLUSION 20
APPENDIX
NOTICE OF APPEAL (2) a-1
ORDER a-2
SUBPOENA a-3
Cases
Matter of Nathaniel TT., 265 A.D.2d 611,614 Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368
Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 2 N.Y.3d 357, 368, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840
(2004)
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
2.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
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
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
protection was also issued at the time, prohibiting the mother from seeing her child,
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
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
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
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
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
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
" . . . 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
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
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
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.
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
Judge Quinn's Order are unsupported by the laws of the State of New York
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,
11.
II. Did the Court, in its June 23 Order, finding Appellant to be neglectful
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
failure of his parent or other person legally responsible for his care to exercise a
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
12.
supervision or guardianship" (Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 2 N.Y.3d 357, 368, 787
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
parent(s) failed, for a period of more than one year following the date the child
repeatedly fail to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, although
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
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
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
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.
20.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
changes.
4. The proceeding was commenced by petition for neglect dated September 17,
2009 by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services. The petition sought
5. The appeal is taken from the Orders of the Honorable James F. Quinn, both
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:
in.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR §
670.10.3(f)
The total number of words in the brief, inclusive of point headings and footnotes
and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, table of citations, proof of
service, certificate of compliance, or any authorized addendum containing statutes,
rules, regulations, etc., is 3670.
IV.
FAMILY COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
-X
In the Matter of
WINONA PISCITELLI
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Docket No.: #: N-l6863-09
A Child under Eighteen Years of Age
Alleged to be Neglected by
WINONA PALMIOTTI,
Respondent-Appellant.
-X
SIRS:
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
, ESQ.
Attomey^ ppellant
732 A54
Smithtown,NY 11787
(631)366-3555
_
II ""'No. O1PR4960557
3£iepeu.ju.iM-*v~
Intervention - Civil
Form A - Request for
?-'&, ?.
In the Matter of of Appea'
01PR4960557
II
'm^gjjjgjjjjijjjjgjjjgjg ^MMMMnraggMHrr^ mr"~*m
Paper Appealed From (check one only):
!
Q Amended Decree Q Determination XKOrder Q Resettled ©rder
Q Amended Judgment Q Finding Q Order & Judgment. Q. Ruling
Q Amended Qrder Q Interlocutory Decree Q Partial Decree Q ether (specify):
Q. Decision Q Interlocutory Judgment Q Resettled Decree
Q Decree Q Judgment Q Resettled Judgment
Court: Family County: Suffolk
Dated: june 23, 2010 Entered: june 23 , 201 0
Judge (name in full): James F. Quinn Index No. : : : N- 1 6863-09
Stage: S Interlocutory Q Final Q Post-Final 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 appeals
covered by the annexed notice of appeal with the prior appeals? Q Yes Q No, Set forth the Appellate Division Cause
Number(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 / 1 7 / 0 9
Statute authorizing commencement of proceeding in the Appellate Division:
Court: County:
Party Information
Instructions; 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-party
party 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 status
any. If this fo/m is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in include; appellant, respondent, appellant-respondent, respondent-appellant
only the party's mm a and his, her, or its status in this court. petitioner, and intervenor.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
No. O1PR4960557
Attorney intorrnauon
Instructions: 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 box
to show cause by Which a speL,^. proceeding is to be commenced in the marked "Pro: Se. ,nust be checked and the appropriate information for that
Appellate Division,, only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be litigant must be supplied in the spaces provided.
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°-ym
iyis.ion:
:a5%i*;;A,i-.v=r - ? • • • - ^ .;<...-.. ,-.;..,. ? '.•- , - • - - ...- -.--.-'7 ..- . Vj-;.- -, .:-7'~->W^.1Sgi3i*'SiS^' V"--1.
' J N o O1PR4960557
II
T 471 —Nonce of App«l-
V k. ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
o I
\
from the
and Appellant
Attorney(s) for
To
form iu-1
In the Matter of
CINNo.
DocketNo.
- Li-05}
ORDER OF FACT-FINDING
(A) Child(ren) Under Eighteen Years of Age AND DISPOSITION WITHOUT
Alleged to be Q Abused Q Neglected by PLACEMENT
QAbuse C&Neglect
Q Severe Abuse Q Repeated Abuse
Respondent(s)
Hearing Date:
IF YOUR CHILD IS PLACED IN FOSTER CARE, YOU MAY LOSE YOUR RIGHTS
TO YOUR CHILD AND YOUR CHILD MAY BE ADOPTED WITHOUT YOUR
CONSENT.
Notice having been duly given to the respondent(s) pursuant to section 1036 or 1037 of the
Family Court Act; and
Q Misused drugs and/or alcohol to the extent that respondent(s) lost self-control of
his/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 Engaged in violent acts in the home or in the presence of the child(ren), described
below, which respondent(s) acknowledge(s) has caused the child(ren)'s physical, mental
or emotional condition to have been impaired or created an imminent danger of becoming
impaired and, that the actual or threatened harm to the child(ren) is a consequence of the
failure of the respondent to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child
with 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 before
this court;
Q Misused drugs and/or alcohol to the extent that respondent(s) lost self-control of
his/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 Engaged in violent acts in the home or in the presence of the child(ren), described
below, which respondent(s) acknowledge(s) has caused the child(ren)'s physical, mental
or emotional condition to have been impaired or created an imminent danger of becoming
impaired and, that the actual or threatened harm to the child(ren) is a consequence of the
failure of the respondent to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child
with proper supervision or guardianship.
Q Other [specify]:
Q denied the allegations of the petition and the matter having duly come on for a fact-finding
hearing before this Court;
Q failed to appear and the matter having duly come on for a fact-finding hearing by inquest before
this Court;
INTERVENORS
And 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 and
information provided by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services.
and having found [check applicable box(es) and specify act(s) of child abuse and/or neglect found, if
any]:
3- by a "Preponderance of the Evidence" that respondent(s) committed the following acts constituting
E^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).
1^. 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 constituting
Q 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 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).
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 of
the child regarding the dispositional plan;
The court, after having made an examination and inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case and into
the surroundings, conditions, and capacities of the persons involved, finds and determines the following:
Form 10-10 W/OP (Suffolk-vl0.0) Page 5
^-ORDERED, that the Respondent(s) herein (is) (are) placed under the supervision of
the Suffolk County Department of Social Services upon the "terms and conditions" set forth
below;
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 and
conditions and receive reports from individuals and agencies administering such programs and such
person(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 6
CONDITIO OF SUPERVISION
1. Refrain from or eliminate specified acts or conditions, found at the fact-finding hearing, to have
constituted, or to have caused, neglect or abuse, and cooperate with the Department of Social
Services in remedying these specified acts or omissions found at the fact-finding hearing to have
constituted, 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, and
permit the Department of Social Services to obtain information from any person, school or agency
from whom the respondent or the child is receiving or was directed to receive services, treatment or
counseling by signing releases to the Department of Social Services;
3. Meet with the Department of Social Services caseworkers alone and with the child(ren) when
directed 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 all
planning conferences;
5. Cooperate with the Department of Social Services in arranging for and allowing visitation in the
home or other place;
6. Notify the Department of Social Services immediately of any change of residence or
employment or change in the occupants of your residence;
E. Visitation Plan
ORDERED that, not later than 60 days prior to the expiration of this order, the Commissioner of Social
Services shall report to the Court, the law guardian, the parties, their attorneys and the non-respondent
parent(s) on the status and circumstances of the child(ren) and family and any actions contemplated, if
any, 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 on
the implementation of this order on .
(ORDERED
ENTER
Dated:
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 County
Family Court 400 Carleton Avenue, Central Islip, NY
11722-9076, on June 23, 2010
NOTICE: YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY SUBJECT YOU TO MANDATORY
ARREST AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, WHICH MAY RESULT IN YOUR INCARCERATION FOR UP TO
SEVEN 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 after
hearing, 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:
[99] Observe such other conditions as are necessary to further the purposes of protection: Respondent shall have no
contact 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 and
replaces the order of protection previously issued under this docket number.;
Page: 2
Docket No: NN-16863-09
GFSa
It is further ordered that this Order Of Protection shall remain in force until and including June 23,2011;
Honorable James
The Family Court Act provides that presentation of a copy of this order of protection to any police officer or peace officer
acting pursuant to his or her special duties authorizes, and sometimes requires, the officer to arrest a person who is alleged to have
violated 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 and
enforced by state and tribal courts, including courts of a state, the District of Columbia, a commonwealth, territory or possession of
the United States, if the person restrained by the order is an intimate partner of the protected party and has or will be afforded
reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard in accordance with state law sufficient to protect due process rights (18 U.S.C.
§§2265, 2266).
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER MUST BE TAKEN
WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
MAILING OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, OR 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY
OR THE LAW GUARDIAN UPON THE APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.
SUBPOENA DUCES
TECUM
(Fam. Ct. Docket No. NN-16863-09)
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 the
above-captioned matter.
Failure to comply with this subpoena is punishable as a contempt of Court and shall make
you liable to the person on whose behalf this subpoena was issued for a penalty not to exceed
fifty dollars and all damages sustained by reason of your failure to comply
a-3
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
certify, pursuant to CPLR 2105 that the copies of the record filed with this Court in
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.
Winona Palmiotti,
Respondent.
An Order of Protection having been entered by this Court pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court
Act, and
Now, after re-examination and inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case and into the
surroundings, 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 the
petition filed on September 17, 2009 is hereby withdrawn.
Should the Petitioner attempt to have the Order of Protection executed, this order should be produced
for 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 MUST
BE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF MAILING OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, OR 30
DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE CHILD'S ATTORNEY UPON THE APPELLANT,
WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.
Petitioner: Respondent:
PRESENT:
HON. SALVATCRE R. MOSCA
JUDGE
-x
In the Matter of a Proceeding for
Custody under Article 6 of the
Family Court Act Index No. V 636-89
WJ.NONA GRANT,,
Petiti oner,
ENTER:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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