Domestic violence issues are complicated. For many years, it was easier for the American judicial system to simply not deal with it. The political climate has changed and with it, the domestic violence laws have changed. We now understand that domestic violence is about control. Sometimes, an abuser cannot accept that the control over the other person has been removed by the state. In some cases, the aggressor attempts to control the court by manipulating the legal system. This type of behavior offensive to the judges and will turn the judges favor away from that person.
In one case like this, which was heard in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County on October 1, 2010, the situation began on May 5, 2010. A man filed a petition to the court on June 30, 2010 claiming that his wife had illegally locked him out of their apartment located at 1880 Valentine Avenue in the Bronx. However, neither party appeared in court and the petition was dismissed. On July 12, 2010, the man filed a second petition alleging that his wife had illegally locked him out of the apartment. This time he claimed that the lock out had happened in February of 2010. This time, the wife appeared in court, but the husband did not. The court dismissed the man’s petition again.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man filed a third petition to the court. This time he claimed that his wife had illegally locked him out of the apartment on July 16, 2010. In this petition, he stated that he had called the police. When the police arrived, they ordered him to leave. Both parties appeared in court on July 23, 2010 in reference to this petition. At that time, the court was notified that on July 16, 2010, Bronx County Family Court had issued each party a Temporary Order of Protection against the other. The wife’s Protection Order directed the husband to stay away from the wife and the three minor children who live with her at 1880 Valentine Avenue. These orders expressly stated that the husband was excluded from that residence. He was also ordered to stay away from the wife’s place of work and not to have any communication with any of the people who lived in the apartment. This is most certainly why the police ordered the husband to leave when they were called to the apartment. Family Court did order that the father could have visitation with his infant child at a location away from the apartment. At that time, the court order for visitation listed the husband’s address as 1160 Wheeler Avenue in the Bronx. The court determined that Family Court was the best resolution to the dispute and dismissed the petition that the husband had filed.
On the afternoon of July 23, 2010, the husband went to Housing Court and filed a petition that the Family Court petition did not accurately state his address. He claimed that his address was still Valentine Avenue and was not Wheeler Avenue. On July 30, 2010 the Housing Court denied his petition because of improper service. He then waited until August 4, 2010, when he filed yet another petition with Housing Court. He again stated that he lived on Valentine and that Family Court had written his address mistakenly on the form. On August 13, 2010, the motion was postponed until September 7, 2010. On September 7, 2010, the man again did not appear in court and the motion was denied. On the afternoon of September 7, 2010, the man filed another motion, this time in Civil Court. He stated that his address was 1880 Valentine Avenue in the Bronx and that he was being illegally locked out of his residence. A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said that te court noticed that the Visitation petition that he was presenting stated that his wife had gained custody of their infant child on July 1, 2010. He stated that the illegal lockout this time, occurred on July 1, 2010.
In reviewing the case, Civil Court noticed that the couple had a Family Court history that started in July of 2009. It was at that time that the wife filed a family court petition against the husband. On July 31, 2009, the wife was issued a Temporary Order of Protection against the husband and he was ordered to stay away from the residence on Valentine. The order was in effect until October 1, 2009. On August 3, 2009 the husband filed a Custody and Visitation petition against the wife. He withdrew both petitions on October 19, 2009. On November 2, 2009, the husband filed another petition in Family Court which was dismissed. Then in February of 2010, both the husband and wife filed Family Offense petitions against each other. On June 3, 2010, both petitions were dismissed because they failed to appear in court.
On July 16, 2010, both parties filed cross-Family Offense petitions against each other and obtained Temporary Orders of Protection against each other. It was at that time that the husband also filed a Custody and Visitation petition. On July 22, 2010, Family Court granted the husband a Temporary Order of Visitation that allowed him to visit with his infant daughter under supervision on Saturdays between noon and 5:00 PM. The Family Court scheduled a trial date as October 22, 2010. The court again notified the husband that the appropriate venue for his complaints was in Family Court and not Criminal, Civil, or Housing. In fact, it was pointed out to the husband that the complaint is moot because the Family Court had already set forth that the wife and children were to live in the apartment on Valentine. That order was signed on July 22, 2010. It clearly defined that the husband was not to reside in the apartment with the infant daughter and could only have supervised visitation with her at a different location. Because this order is already in effect, it prevents any other court venue over the situation. That means that this court cannot restore the Valentine residence to the husband because he is expressly prohibited from being on that premises for the protection of the infant daughter.
The court further noted that at the time of this new July 23, 2010 petition filed by the husband there was already in effect a Family Court Order of Protection that expressly prevent the husband from being on the premises of the apartment on Valentine. There was also a notation by the court that at the time that the husband had filed the July 2010, petition, he stated that he had been locked out of the apartment in February of 2010. The court is left to question why he would have waited a full five months to file this petition.
The court noticed that there is an extensive history of domestic violence between the husband and wife which resulted in the husband being excluded from the apartment on Valentine. The court reviewed multiple domestic incident reports and Orders of Protection that have been issued by Family Court and the Criminal Courts against the husband. It also noted that the current wife is not the only woman who has filed criminal charges against the husband. He has numerous cases in the past involving various other women.
In this case, the court noticed the pattern of domestic violence that this man was responsible for involving many women in his past and his current wife. The court recognized the pattern of an aggressor who is trying to manipulate the legal system in an attempt to inconvenience and intimidate his current wife. In this case, the Housing Court dismissed his petition again.
It is critical to point out that this man’s continued efforts to control his wife and the children has resulted in numerous court appearances. Women who find themselves in situations involving someone who is demonstrating this level of obsession need to consult with a family violence lawyer. Stephen Bilkis & Associates has a Domestic Violence Lawyer who can represent you. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, assault, or are involved in a domestic violence matter, it is important that you call us. Because there are convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area, it is easy to locate one of these attorneys close to you.