FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
SUSAN SAMORA,
Docket #0-972-98
Petitioner,
FU #53516
-against-
PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
Richard J. Daronco Court House
111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
White Plains, New York
March 22, 1999
B E F O R E :
HON. INGRID S. BRASLOW
Family Court Judge
A P P E A R A N C E S :
Mark Domicello, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioner
Photius Coutsoukis
Appearing Pro Se
Robin Kotler, Esq.
Law Guardian
SANDY SAUNDERS REPORTING
Bank of New York Building
Two New Hempstead Road, Suite 303
New City, New York 10956
(914) 634-7561
COURT OFFICER: Your Honor,
this is numbers one, two and three on the
afternoon calendar in the matter of
Samora and Coutsoukis. Counsel, please
note your appearances first, starting on
the Judge's left.
MR. DOMICELLO: Mark
Domicello, assigned counsel for Susan
Samora.
MS. KOTLER: Robin Kotler,
Law Guardian.
COURT OFFICER: Thank you.
All other parties please raise your right
hands. Do you both swear to tell the
truth, so help you God?
MS. SAMORA: I do.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I do.
COURT OFFICER: Your name?
MS. SAMORA: Susan Samora.
COURT OFFICER: Your name?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Photius
Coutsoukis.
COURT OFFICER: Thank you.
Please be seated.
THE COURT: All right. We're
scheduled for a continuation of the Fact
Finding Hearing under Docket 0-972 of
1998. Ready to proceed, Mr. Domicello?
MR. DOMICELLO: Yes, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Ready
to proceed, Ms. Kotler?
MS. KOTLER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr.
Coutsoukis, ready to proceed?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Just
a little bit of housekeeping. You have
before you a decision that was rendered
by this court on the motion submitted by
Mr. Coutsoukis, Docket X-307. There will
be added to today's calendar Docket X--
which had been docketed as X-307--it will
now be re-docketed as X-349 of 1999. It
is the Order to Show Cause filed by Mr.
Coutsoukis for assigned counsel to submit
to a polygraph test. In addition, adding
to today's calendar is Docket X-210 of
1999, the law guardian's motion to
require Mr. Coutsoukis to submit to a
psychiatric evaluation.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Question,
Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: On that
motion, shouldn't I have been permitted
to defend myself before we go into such
motions on this particular matter, the
X--
THE COURT: I'll give you the
opportunity this afternoon. As to the
re-docketed motion, X-349 of 1999, Mr.
Domicello, you want to be heard on that?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor--
Your Honor, my question--that the Order
to Show Cause in that petition be
dismissed. I have not been properly
served with the Order to Show Cause
itself. I have the Order to Show Cause
here. It was sent to me by Fed-Ex, and
it's not signed by any judge.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor,
it was dictated, including the signature,
by Mr. Ed Mead (phonetic) on the phone
exactly as I was supposed to do it.
THE COURT: Will you accept
service of it, Mr. Domicello?
MR. DOMICELLO: Yes, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. All right,
then do you want to be heard?
MR. DOMICELLO: Yes, Your
Honor. I really originally had made a
request, Your Honor, last week--I'm sure
the court has a copy--to be relieved of
this matter by reasons being that I felt
that in light of the personal attacks
upon me by Mr. Coutsoukis, that I felt
that my ability to represent my client
may be compromised in some way. I
rethought my request, Your Honor. I
believe I can do a good job. I think
I've done a good job for Ms. Samora
throughout. I'm therefore withdrawing my
request to be relieved in this matter.
As far as the request I take a polygraph
test, I think that is--there's no basis
in law or fact in this court that would
warrant this court to order or direct
this assigned counsel to take a polygraph
test. I am not a party to this action.
I am not Mr. Coutsoukis' attorney. There
is--any conversations had between me and
him over the course of my representation
are without prejudice and not admissible.
This is not a criminal matter, beside the
fact that any polygraph test that would
be directed wouldn't be admissible in any
hearing. This is not--once again, this
is not a criminal matter and I'm not a
party to this action. There's no--there
will be no basis to direct the polygraph
test and I argue a petition in Family
Court.
THE COURT: Okay. Ms.
Kotler, do you want to be heard?
MS. KOTLER: Yes, Your Honor.
I was going to move to dismiss because I
was not properly served, and I am pretty
angry about the fact that every time Mr.
Coutsoukis does a motion or an Order to
Show Cause, he does not send me the
proper affirmation, affidavits, or
exhibits. And in his affidavit to the
court, paragraph twenty-eight, affidavit
dated 1/30/99, he clearly states that he
is deliberately refusing to send me this
material, which prejudices my client and
is disrespectful of the office of law
guardian and disrespectful of a court and
the judicial process. I cannot properly
represent my client when I don't--this is
all I got, Your Honor. This top cover
sheet, unsigned, no affidavit, no
affirmation. I have no idea what this is
about. I would ask this court to direct
him--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: That's the
Order to Show Cause?
MS. KOTLER: To send me all
the proper papers.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you,
Ms. Kotler. Do you want to say anything,
Mr. Coutsoukis?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Well, that's
the Order to Show Cause she's holding,
okay? And also she did receive an
affidavit with that Order to Show Cause.
I did send it to her. I have tried to
send to her the documents by Fed-Ed which
would require a signature so we know she
has them. She has refused those. When I
send them by mail, now she says she does
not--there was one set of exhibits which
are already part of the record which I
did not include and those are the only
ones. Everything she's got since the
last time. She got the same as the court
and the same as Mr. Domicello.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. KOTLER: Your Honor?
THE COURT: On Docket X-307--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I would like
to speak regarding his wanting to dismiss
my Order to Show Cause.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Mr.
Domicello signed a document under the
penalties or perjury, and I'm quoting the
top line of his document, "Perjury is a
crime." This is a criminal matter. The
court does have the authority to order
Mr. Domicello to take a polygraph test,
and so do the authorities. And because
Mr. Domicello's statements, which I have
on tape--this is a very authentic tape
and I will take it to a forensic lab to
authenticate--indicate that he was
ordered, directed by this court to answer
my motion to recuse the judge. This is a
very serious matter and I think the court
should want to get to the truth of this
matter, not to allow finessing out of it
in this manner.
THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis,
your application--your Order to Show
Cause will be denied in all respect. The
court agrees with the assigned counsel.
This is not a criminal matter.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Virtually?
THE COURT: No. I'm sorry,
sir. This is not a criminal matter.
There is no basis for this court to order
assigned counsel to submit to a polygraph
test. He is not a party to this
proceeding. Okay. Any motion that you
may have made for this court to recuse
itself was not--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Are we on
the record?
THE COURT: --was not
received by this court. There was a
previous motion to recuse that was
already decided, and the court is not
going to entertain that motion again. As
to the law--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Are we on
the record?
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Are we on
the record, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Oh, absolutely.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Thank you.
THE COURT: We don't do
anything that is not on the record, Mr.
Coutsoukis. As to the law guardian's
motion, X-210, that motion will be held
in abeyance until the completion of the
Fact Finding Hearing.
MS. KOTLER: Thank you, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's
proceed now with O-972 of 1998. All
right. Mr. Domicello, Ms. Samora was on
the witness stand.
MR. DOMICELLO: Yes, Your
Honor.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Before we do
that, I have a statement, Your Honor. I
would like to ask the court to please
strike from the record a false and
prejudicial, irrelevant statement made by
Mr. Domicello last time, and I am reading
from the transcript of December 1, 1998,
page twenty-seven, lines twenty-two
through twenty-five, and page twenty-
eight, lines two through four. Quote,
"Mr. Coutsoukis, as he stated, believes
he has no knowledge of any of the
doctors, any of the medical providers,
that my client has chosen to care for
this child, and that just shows where Mr.
Coutsoukis is coming from," unquote. I
did not make such a statement, so I move
the court to strike that passage from the
record.
THE COURT: All right. Mr.
Domicello, do you want to be heard?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
what I state on the record is my belief
and that my belief is culled from the
facts and evidence presented in that
case, and I stand by that statement.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: That's not
what you said.
MR. DOMICELLO: I believe
that--may I finish, please? I believe
that not only has--is that my belief, but
as also believed by the law guardian in
this case. And that is once again taken
from the statements that Mr. Coutsoukis
has made both in and outside this
courtroom. There is no basis for that--
those statements to be stricken from the
record. Mr. Coutsoukis has not presented
any law or fact which would warrant this
court to strike those statements and,
therefore, I would object.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor,
he stated--he said, Mr. Coutsoukis, as he
stated. I did not state such at any time
in this court, or outside this court for
that matter. This court has not heard me
state such a thing. There's nothing of
this sort on the record. He says I did
so and puts that on the record. It
should be stricken.
THE COURT: That will remain
on the record. The motion to strike is
denied.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I also move
this court to strike from the same
transcript all testimony by Mr. Domicello
and Ms. Kotler regarding my mental
health. They are not sworn witness--they
are not sworn witnesses. They are
lawyers appointed by the Judge and they
have absolutely no business testifying,
and absolutely no expert or other
authority to be making these false and
scurrilous psychological evaluations of
me.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
what we've made, me and Ms. Kotler--I
believe she will back me up on this--we
made an application to this court to
order a psychological evaluation based on
Mr. Coutsoukis' actions both within and
without this--and outside this court. I
did not make a diagnosis, nor did I
pretend to be an expert in the area. I
simply made an application to have this
court direct that Mr. Coutsoukis be
evaluated by a professional.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. KOTLER: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you want to
be heard, Ms. Kotler?
MS. KOTLER: Your Honor, I
would say the same thing. We're making
an application. My application--I've
also got a motion here. It's my belief
based on my conversations with him,
observations, being in and out of the
courtroom. And I'm not representing that
I'm a psychiatrist.
THE COURT: Those statements
will remain on the record. They will not
be struck.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Those
characterizations remain?
THE COURT: Everything that
was said in the courtroom remains on the
record.
MR. COURTSOUKIS: Okay. For
the record I would like to state that
this court, citing technical reasons,
refused to sign my subpoena duces tecum
which requested the petitioner's
psychiatric records while, in the past,
no technicalities stood in the way of
inhuman treatment of me and my daughter
by this court. Also, for the record I
would like to note that when there is a
disagreement, Ms. Kotler's opinion is
employed as a tie breaker, as if this
were a beauty contest, and that doing so
in describing my daughter's medical
condition is very inappropriate.
Furthermore, there is no basis for the
petitioner having coming in with a
petition for telephone annoyance to have
the court assign counsel, and there's
absolutely no legal basis for the law
guardian. And both of these court-
appointed attorneys are here apparently
to lend credibility to judicial decisions
and to false accusations.
THE COURT: All right. Let's
proceed. Okay? Mr. Domicello, your
client will be recalled to the witness
stand at this time.
MR. DOMICELLO: Yes, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: She'll be sworn
in and we'll proceed with cross-
examination. I'll give you a certain
amount of time within which you can do
your cross, but I do want to conclude the
hearing today.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I believe
that would be unfair because the other
side had already three meetings. I have
not had a chance to cross-examine the
witness and I have not had any chance to
testify in over two years.
THE COURT: Let's go. Let's
not waste anymore time.
COURT OFFICER: Raise your
hand, please. Do you solemnly swear to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MS. SAMORA: I do.
COURT OFFICER: State your
name for the record, please.
MS. SAMORA: Susan Samora.
THE COURT: All right.
Proceed, Mr. Coutsoukis.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MS. SAMORA
BY MR. COUTSOUKIS:
Q Isn't it true that you and I have
known each other for over twenty years
approximately?
A Approximately.
Q To your knowledge, is it true or
false that I suffer from chronic back problems?
A Yes.
Q During the last hearing, did you
state, quote, "I guess I did," unquote, in
response to my question as to whether you lied
in your resume?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. I don't believe that was her
testimony. I objected to that question.
I objected to Mr.--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: She can
answer.
THE COURT: No.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: She can
answer.
THE COURT: No, no, no.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
can I please finish my question?
THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis,
let him finish.
MR. DOMICELLO: And I believe
I objected when Mr. Coutsoukis attempted
to place some documents, which I believed
to be my client's resume, into evidence,
and that was sustained.
THE COURT: Objection
sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: No, that was
the--actually--
THE COURT: No, no, no.
COURT OFFICER: Sir?
THE COURT: Objection
sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: You cannot ask
that question.
Q Did you at any time lie in your
resume regarding your education?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Relevance to this matter?
THE COURT: Objection sus--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: The
relevance to this matter is that the
petitioner's honesty or lack thereof--she
has a long history of perjury--in a case
where there has been absolutely no
evidence to support her allegations is
crucial. They have questioned my mental
health, among other things. It is
imperative that I be allowed to expose
the petitioner's character.
MR. DOMICELLO: Well, then
Mr. Coutsoukis should present evidence
that my client permitted perjury in this
courtroom or on her petition within this
matter.
THE COURT: I'm going to
sustain the objection.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: You will
sustain the objection?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Is the reason we're here today your
petition of 00-972-98, the Order of Protection?
A I'm not sure of the number.
Q Are we here because of a petition
you filed for an Order of Protection?
A Yes.
Q And you have come to court in
connection with this petition four times
already?
A If that's how many times--
Q Have you come--is this the fourth
time you've come here since you filed--
A I don't remember it. If that's--
Q Did you go in front of a judge
other than Judge Braslow or Judge Tolbert and
then you came here?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
I'm going to object to the relevancy of
that question.
A I don't--I--
MR. DOMICELLO: We're here
for a petition today, not for prior
petitions.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. Based
on what the petitioner told me, she is
under the impression that I have been
bringing her to court the last few
months. Perhaps if she understood that
this was her action and that she can
spare everybody the agony--
THE COURT: Ask a question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: She might
decide to--
THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: --to
withdraw it.
THE COURT: She testified on
direct examination. You cannot ask her--
I'm sorry, on direct examination.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: She did not
answer.
THE COURT: You cannot ask
her to withdraw her petition.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I was asking
whether she's aware that we are here for
the fourth time because of a petition she
filed for an Order of Protection.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
that's also outside the scope of direct
examination.
THE COURT: She asked and
answered. Let's just confine ourselves
to what she testified to--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Can she be
allowed to answer?
THE COURT: --on direct.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Can she be
allowed to answer?
THE COURT: Let's proceed.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q To the best of your knowledge, am I
decent, hardworking and caring and generous?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor,
I'm going to object to that question.
There's no relevance for that question to
be answered, and it's also out of the
scope of direct examination.
THE COURT: I'm going to
sustain the objection.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Well, there
are (inaudible) that we have two court-
appointed lawyers--
THE COURT: No, Mr.
Coutsoukis, let's not go there again.
The objection is sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: My
character--
THE COURT: Ask another
question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: My character
is an issue here.
THE COURT: Let's move on.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Have I treated you with compassion
and generosity over the years?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DOMICELLO: Same
objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: The last
time I brought a part of Susan's
divorce petition, to which Mr. Domicello
objected citing technicalities that I
believe have no bearing. I brought the
complete and original set of documents
that was served by the petitioner. I
would like to present them as exhibit
here.
THE COURT: This is cross-
examination. Ask her a question, please.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Can I not
give her a document to look at?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
there's no question before the court.
THE COURT: What is the
question?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Did you lie under oath when you
filed a divorce petition in Ventura County?
Yes or no?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
same objection I made with reference to
the--my client's resume. Same objection.
THE COURT: Objection
sustained. Mr. Coutsoukis, again,
confine your questions to this petition
only.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. This
petition is based on statements made by
the petitioner--
THE COURT: No. Just ask her
questions.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: --strictly--
exactly--and I would like to--
THE COURT: Sir?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
Mr. Coutsoukis is testifying.
THE COURT: You are. Just
ask her a question based on her
testimony.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q In your amended petition, it says
that the respondent--did you say, The
respondent blames me for our daughter's medical
condition? Is that what you're claiming that I
have--
A That's what it says. Does it--if
it says there, I--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. Can I
present to you, Your Honor, with a lethal
weapon used in attempting to heal my
daughter repeatedly?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. If Mr. Coutsoukis--first of
all, there's no question here. Second of
all, he's presenting you with something
allegedly--he's not even asking that it
be marked for identification--and--
THE COURT: No, you cannot
present me with this, Mr. Coutsoukis.
MR. DOMICELLO: And--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Yes. The
question was about--the question was
about whether she is or not responsible
to be blamed for my daughter's condition,
and I would like to show that she is.
THE COURT: Well, what is--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: That is in
the petition.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: What is the
question?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Again--
THE COURT: What is the
question?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: The question
is, Did you try to kill Teddy?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
we're here for Order of Protection.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Will they
allow her to answer one question?
MS. SAMORA: Absolutely not.
MR. DOMICELLO: My client has
alleged--
THE COURT: No, no. Just a
moment. Just a moment.
MR. DOMICELLO: My client has
alleged that Mr. Coutsoukis committed
acts, criminal acts, which would warrant
this court granting an Order of
Protection, not whether or not my client
is responsible for any problems or
illnesses that the parties' child has.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: You put it
in the petition. I didn't.
THE COURT: Okay. Just a
minute, Mr. Coutsoukis.
MR. DOMICELLO: The fact that
Mr. Coutsoukis continually blames my
client and harasses her and annoys her is
the basis for the petition, not whether
or not my client is guilty of such.
THE COURT: All right. Ms.
Kotler, do you want to be heard?
MS. KOTLER: Your Honor, I
was just going to say that he--Mr.
Coutsoukis misstated his own question.
That is not what he asked this witness.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Would you
like to state it for me correctly?
MS. KOTLER: No, I would like
you to restate your question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Did you try to kill Teddy, our
daughter?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: Objection
sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. You
don't like this question? Okay.
Q Did you state in your complaint
that I blame you for our daughter's medical
condition? Is it your contention that I blame
you for Teddy's medical condition?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Would you please examine
this? This is for my question, and please keep
it in the plastic so that we don't contaminate
the evidence. Would you please pass it on?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
if--I'm objecting, Your Honor, to this.
There is--this is not--he's not being
asked that any of this evidence be marked
in evidence and, once again--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: May I--
MR. DOMICELLO: I'm objecting
to any evidence being presented that has
to do with my client's alleged acts
against the daughter. That's not what
we're here for.
THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis,
what are you holding in your hand, in a
plastic bag?
MS. SAMORA: Crackers.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: This is--
maybe the petitioner can tell--
THE COURT: No, just tell me.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: This is--
THE COURT: No. I'm asking--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: --poison to
my daughter.
THE COURT: What is it?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: It is brown
rice snaps. My--
THE COURT: Brown rice snaps?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Correct. My
daughter was placed by the petitioner,
her choice, into a ketogenic diet, which
is a set diet, and this is pure
carbohydrates and it can induce seizures,
of which there were two huge ones that
the petitioner took my daughter into the
emergency-room and then she was admitted
in the hospital after that.
THE COURT: Okay. Objection
sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: All right.
She can kill my daughter. I cannot--
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection. I
ask that that be stricken from the
record.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: No, no, no, no.
Please, Mr. Coutsoukis. That will be
struck from the record.
Q Did your first complaint state that
I will--that the--I, the respondent, will be
deemed to examine our daughter's body for
bruises right out in the street?
A Yes.
Q And didn't you under oath, the last
time we were here when Mr. Domicello asked you
that, you said, No, it was in the police
station?
A I mean, sometimes it's outside, in
the police station. It happens, you know, no
matter where you see her.
Q But isn't it true that last time
you said otherwise that, No, it was at the
police station?
A It happened--
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
this is argumentative. I'm objecting
and, second of all, my client's
testimony, I believe the last time, was
that it was in public. Inside a police
station could be in public.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Yes, which
is not the same as on the street.
THE COURT: The court--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: It says, In
the street.
THE COURT: The court agrees
with you. Mr. Coutsoukis, objection
sustained.
MR. DOMICELLO: Okay.
THE COURT: And the record
will speak for itself.
Q Did you say that I lifted a long
dress to look at her knees, or up to her knees?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Can you tell us on how many
occasions in the last two years or so since
Teddy and I have been separated you have
brought Teddy to me wearing a dress?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. The time frame--we're here
for a petition that has a certain time
frame and it does not go back two years,
and I'll object to that question. It's
over broad.
THE COURT: All right. The
objection will be sustained to the extent
that it goes back for two years. You can
rephrase.
Q Okay. How many times have you
brought Teddy to me wearing a dress?
THE COURT: Within what
period of time?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Within the
period of time that Mr. Domicello
chooses.
MR. DOMICELLO: To what?
THE COURT: No, you're the
one who has to ask the question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: June? Is
June okay? July? September?
MR. DOMICELLO: I'm not
testifying, Your Honor.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
MR. DOMICELLO: I don't have
to answer his question and I'm not going
to.
Q Since June. Since June of 1998,
how many times have you brought Teddy to the
police station for me to take her home wearing
a dress?
A Well, I can think of one
specifically, and in the summer she'd be
wearing shorts, so you always examined her with
shorts on.
Q How many times have you brought her
to me wearing shorts since July 1998?
A A lot in the summer. She was
pretty much always wearing shorts.
Q Until when?
A Well, then, you know, when the
seasons change, then--and then for her birthday
was when she had her dress on.
Q And when was her birthday?
A September 28.
Q Okay. And before her birthday, was
she wearing long slacks?
A I don't know. I mean, if the
weather--
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor, I
believe that's been asked and answered.
THE COURT: I'll allow it.
Q Isn't it a rule--
A If the weather was--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Thank you.
Q Isn't it a rule that you bring
Teddy to me almost always, most of the time, as
a rule wearing long slacks?
A It depends upon the weather. I
mean, if it's hot, she wears short.
Q What percentage of the time have
you brought Teddy wearing anything--anything
other than long pants at the police station in
Ossining in front of the policemen?
A I don't know.
Q Guess.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
A Like I said, it was whether--
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Just
a minute. There's an objection. What--
MR. DOMICELLO: That
question's been asked and answered. My
client says she doesn't recall, and
that's as far as that question should be
allowed to be asked.
THE COURT: Objection
sustained.
Q Now--
MR. DOMICELLO: But Mr.
Coutsoukis is asking her to guess.
Q When you said--when you said that I
lifted her skirt up to her knees, was she
wearing any tights underneath?
A No.
Q And did I--were there any bruises
on her legs--any black and whites?
A Black and blues, you mean?
Q Black and whites?
A Blues.
Q Okay. Black and blues. Yes.
A Right.
Q I'm sorry. Okay. And is there a
reason why that is in the--your complaint of--
why is that in your complaint? What is the
problem with that?
A I feel that to lift a child's legs
to look at bruises and--
Q Lift her legs, you say?
A I mean, to lift her skirt, to look
at her legs to check for bruises I feel is
invasive to her.
Q Invasive to her?
A It implies that something is
happening.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
can my client finish a question before
Mr. Coutsoukis interrupts every time?
THE COURT: Yes, please. Let
her finish. Okay.
Q And would you say it is more or
less invasive than an unsolicited genital and
anal examination, including photos?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the
objection.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor,
I'm not able to ask anything here.
THE COURT: No, but that's a
clearly inappropriate question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: This is
inappropriate?
THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis--
Q Have you at any time subjected--
THE COURT: Ask another
question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Have you at any time subjected
Teddy to a genital--an unsolicited genital and
anal examination by third parties, including
photos?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: She can kill
her with murder.
THE COURT: You heard me.
No.
MR. DOMICELLO: Object--I
request that that be stricken, that last
statement.
THE COURT: Well, I'll strike
it. And please do not make gratuitous
remarks like that again.
MS. SAMORA: Your Honor, am I
allowed to say anything?
Q You said--did you say in your
complaint that when she'd say, B, I asked her
whether she meant beat, meaning, did somebody
beat her?
A Yes.
Q And how many times, on how many
occasions did I ask that?
A At least a couple of times.
Q At least a couple of times? On two
separate conversations?
A Right.
Q Separate conversations?
A Right.
Q Okay. And do you think it's wrong
for a father to know if a child was beaten? To
make her aware that she has to complain when
somebody beats her? Is there something wrong
with that?
A Theodora--
Q Is there something wrong with a
father asking that? We're not talking
Theodora, we're asking the father asking.
A We are talking Theodora.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
A We are talking Theodora.
THE COURT: Objection
sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Objection to
what?
THE COURT: To your question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Of whether
it is wrong for a father to ask that?
THE COURT: Yes. It's not
relevant.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: On what
basis?
THE COURT: It's not relevant
to this proceeding.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: It is
absolutely relevant because I'm being
accused of harassment. Harassment for
the Penal Code has everything to do with
intent. If we cannot prove my intent, we
are not proving harassment. If I'm not
allowed to ask the petitioner--the
witness about defense, we cannot prove my
innocence, can we?
THE COURT: Objection
sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: Move on.
Q Did you not ask in your original
petition to this other judge, not Judge
Braslow, Judge Tolbert, in your petition for an
Order of Protection to limit the exchange to
five minutes?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Okay. Did Judge Tolbert, this
other judge, when granting you a temporary
Order of Protection mention anything in it
about limiting the exchange to five minutes?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Okay. In your--when you saw Judge
Tolbert on September 25, and you were asked
whether you were divorced, did you say, "Well,
I hope," unquote? You don't know what you
said?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: What
grounds?
THE COURT: Not relevant.
Q Would you feel more divorced if I
had moved to Africa and never heard from me
again?
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Did you--when you presented the
other judge with a fax as evidence, can you
tell us what that fax said? Do you recall what
was on that fax?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I'm being
accused of sending her a fax. I wanted
to know what the fax says. Why are we--
what is the objection here?
MS. KOTLER: My--
THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I'm being
accused of sending her a fax that was
bad, and I'm asking her to say what was
on that fax.
THE COURT: Ask your
questions as to the proceedings before
this court, not before Judge--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Yes. The
proceeding befor this court is for the
Order of Protection.
THE COURT: Not before Judge
Tolbert.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. Well,
this proceeding is a result of a
complaint she filed in front of Judge
Tolbert in which she had it attached--
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
we're here for a Fact Finding Hearing,
not an application for a temporary Order
of Protection. That has been granted
already. Mr. Coutsoukis never attempted
to have that temporary Order of
Protection vacated. We're not here for
that. It's irrelevant.
THE COURT: Objection
sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I have asked
for it to be dismissed repeatedly.
THE COURT: Objection
sustained. Let's move on.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I have asked
for it to be vacated. Okay?
THE COURT: Let's move on.
Q Isn't it true that even though you
complain about faxes, your temporary Order of
Protection under which I am currently refrained
says absolutely nothing about faxes?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
I'm going to object. My client's
petition is what's before this court, not
what is in--what Mr. Coutsoukis is
directed to do in the temporary Order of
Protection.
THE COURT: The court agrees
with you. Objection sustained. Next
question?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor,
I would like to state for the record--
THE COURT: Next question?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Next--
Q Did you bring that fax into this
court to introduce as an exhibit?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
which fax is Mr. Coutsoukis referring to?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: The one that
last time you asked the court to find in
the folder--in the file. You asked the
court, the clerk--Mr. Domicello asked the
court clerk last time to look and find
the fax that Ms. Samora brought to the
other Judge--
THE COURT: Okay. She can
answer the question.
Q Did you bring in that fax as an
exhibit--
A Yes.
Q --to show--
A Yes.
Q Okay. Can you tell us what's in
it? Does it have something to do with my
saying that there are records missing, medical
records or educational records?
A Oh, yeah. I think it--I think it
was a request about educate--
Q Something about--
A About--
Q Yes?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. My client--can my client
answer the question without Mr.
Coutsoukis interjecting?
THE COURT: Let her answer
the question. Don't make gestures to
her, Mr. Coutsoukis.
A It was about--I think it was about
educational records or ophthalmology records or
medical records. I'm not sure which ones. And
then there was a threat that if--I think it
was--the 25th was what day? It was a Friday.
Is that last year? Yeah, it was a Friday--that
if--that I did--if I didn't provide the records
that I was going to be--you were taking me to
court on Monday.
Q Are you under court order to supply
me with any records, medical or educational,
which I'm not able to obtain from the
providers?
A Within--with a request and within a
certain amount of time. And if--
Q And was this facsimile request--
A If--excuse me. Can I finish
please? And if due diligence has not been made
to the--whoever you're getting the information
from, whether it's the school or the doctors.
I mean, I can recall a time when I gave you the
information from the ophthalmologist three
times and you kept on claiming you never got
it, so--
Q Say that again.
A I said, I can remember one instance
which--this really doesn't have any relevance
here, so never mind.
Q Okay. Thank you. During the period
of time covered by this amended petition, did
you provide me with an item of food when you
sent Teddy over to my house about which I
complained?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Irrelevant.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: How is that
irrelevant?
THE COURT: I'll allow it if
you'd be specific as to the date.
A What are you talking about? What--
Q Well, I think we have agreed to a
time period here at this time from July to
December.
THE COURT: No. Mr.
Coutsoukis, you tell me.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: What time are you
talking where she visits?
Q We're talking about July of 1998.
you sent with Teddy to my house an item of
brown rice snaps. Did you?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Irrelevant. It's
irrelevant to the allegations--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I'll get to
it.
MR. DOMICELLO: --of this
petition and it's outside the scope of
direct examination.
THE COURT: I'm going to
sustain the objection.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Isn't it true that you use Orders
of Protection as a method to deny me and Teddy
access to each other?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
A No.
THE COURT: No. It's
sustained. Don't answer if it's--someone
raises an objection.
Q Isn't it true that the last time
you were here--we were here, you said--you
admitted that you had said to me that if I sent
anymore exhibits, documents to you, you would
consider them as harassment?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. I don't believe that was the
testimony.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: It was her
testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I--
THE COURT: That was not
testimony.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: It's in the
transcript.
THE COURT: Objection
sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: The
transcript of the last time we were
here.
THE COURT: Well, if it's in
the transcript, then it speaks for
itself.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: Ask another
question.
Q On March 14, 1999, did I call Teddy
and you said that she was asleep? Did you--do
you recall me calling and you said I couldn't
speak with her, she was taking a sleep? She
was asleep?
A I don't know.
Q You don't know?
A I don't remember March 14. When
was March 14?
Q Do you remember September 1998?
A Yeah, that's a different story.
Q Do you remember September 1998?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. That's argumentative.
A Yes.
THE COURT: What is the
question--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: September 1998?
Q Did you--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Well, the
question is, we can't remember March
1999, but we remember September 1998.
That's the question.
THE COURT: What is--no.
MR. DOMICELLO: That's--and
that's an objectionable question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Did you hang up on me when I said
that Teddy slept better when she was taking
Frisium?
A When she was taking what?
Q Frisium, F-R-I-S-I-U-M.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Irrelevant.
Q Did you hang up on me when I--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: We're
talking about phone harassment here, Your
Honor. Please.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor?
MS. KOTLER: Objection
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor,
I have to defend myself on the basis of
the Penal Code--
THE COURT: Please--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Definition
of harassment.
THE COURT: Please do. And
the way you defend yourself is by
questioning her as to her direct
evidence.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Correct.
And that is--
THE COURT: All right. Can
you do that?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. When
she hangs up on me, that means she
perceives some sort of intent--
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection.
Mr. Coutsoukis is testifying.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: --which is
the basis of the definition.
THE COURT: You're
testifying. Objection sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: What am I
allowed to ask her if anything? If she's
not--
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: That's up to you.
I cannot tell you what you should ask.
If you have no further questions, I'm
going to conclude--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: No--yes, I
certainly do have a lot of questions.
THE COURT: I'm going to
conclude the cross-examination.
Q Do--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: No, I have
plenty of questions.
Q Do you know if it--
THE COURT: All right. Well,
then, you will be given a few more
moments, Mr. Coutsoukis. Make sure your
questions are relevant. If they continue
in an irrelevant manner, the court will
cut off cross-examination.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I will try
to be relevant, Your Honor, but like to
remind the court--
THE COURT: I'll give you
another few more minutes.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Yes. That
for two years this court has heard over
and over and over false accusations--
THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis,
let's move on.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I have never
had a chance to be heard.
THE COURT: Let's move on
right now.
Q Do you not as a matter of course,
when I bring up Teddy, her condition, and
discuss it, hang up on me?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. It's irrelevant.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: How can that
be irrelevant? We're talking about my
calling her and she considers this
harassment.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
Ms. Samora has alleged that Mr.
Coutsoukis has harassed her through calls
and other means. The content of those
conversations--whether or not he calls
her--are not really relevant in this
matter.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: The content
of the conversation that she considers
harassment is not relevant?
MR. DOMICELLO: What my
client--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: What is
relevant?
MR. DOMICELLO: What my
client says in response to harassing
calls is not relevant. Whether or not
Mr. Coutsoukis--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I did not
ask her what she said. I asked whether
she hung up.
MR. DOMICELLO: Whether Mr.
Coutsoukis made the call--
THE COURT: I'm going to
allow him to ask the question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q When I ask if--when I mention that
on the phone to you that Teddy slept better
when she was taken Frisium, did you not hang up
me?
THE COURT: No, not--no, no,
no, no. No.
Q Did you not--did you not as a
matter--normally, as a matter of rule, as a
rule, hang up on me whenever I bring up aspects
of Teddy's condition in conversation on the
phone?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. The--
THE COURT: It's vague and
general. Objection sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: No, I tried
a specific one and that was--
THE COURT: No, Mr.
Coutsoukis. Please. You don't have to
respond--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: --every time I
make a ruling.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: That is not
necessary.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Do you feel that when I call and
discuss Teddy, my intentions are to harass you?
Do you feel that when I call and we have a
conversation, whether I call Teddy or you, that
when I discuss Teddy, to you that is
harassment--harassing? Teddy's condition.
A When you discuss Teddy, when you
just want to discuss Teddy.
Q Teddy's condition. Like Frisium,
like her feet, like her--
A No, I don't think that's
harassment.
Q You don't think it's harassment?
Okay.
A Not if you--not if there's a
continuing and if I--if I don't want to
continue the phone call and I hang up and you
continue to--continue to call, then I think
it's harassment.
Q Okay. Did I continue to call when
you hung up on me when I asked about Frisium?
A No.
Q Okay. But you hung up on me. Was
that an indication that you felt harassed?
A No.
Q You did not feel harassment?
A I--wait a minute.
Q Do you know why you hung up on me?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
when my client--ask one question at a
time and not have these compound
questions?
THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr.
Domicello?
MR. DOMICELLO: We have
compound questions, Your Honor. I'm
asking that Mr. Coutsoukis answer--ask
one question at a time and my client be
given an opportunity to answer.
THE COURT: All right. I'm
going to order that you cannot ask a
compound question, but you should not
ask--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: She asked
the first one, I asked the second one.
THE COURT: You should not
ask her questions that call for a legal
conclusion as well.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: By asking a
question in reference to harassment, that
is a legal conclusion and I will not
permit her to answer that question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Did you--why did you hang up on me
when I stated that I felt Teddy slept better
when she was taking Frisium?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
it's irrelevant. Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I would like
to ask the witness to examine a
transcript of a conversation that Mr.
Domicello cited in the last hearing as an
evidence of harassment.
THE COURT: I don't know what
you're referring to. A transcript of a
conversation?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: This is the
conver--actual conversation that Mr.
Domicello last time said, through the
witness, constituted harassment, and I
would like her to authenticate the
contents so we can go over it to see
whether indeed it was or was not
harassment.
THE COURT: Is this a
transcript of a conversation over the
telephone that you had--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: That's
right.
THE COURT: All right--
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: What is the
objection?
THE COURT: I'm not going to
permit any transcript to be reviewed by
this witness.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: It is not a
transcript of a court proceeding or--the
court has no knowledge of--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. May I
ask her questions about the content of
that conversation which she described as
harassing her?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
this conversation--
THE COURT: I don't know--
MR. DOMICELLO: --takes place
between whom?
THE COURT: I don't know what
conversation we're referring to.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: This is
between Susan and myself. It took place
in September. It was the last time I
called the petitioner before months later
when Mr. Domicello said to call her
because she didn't know why the hearing
was closed--adjourned.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor, to anything that I may have
said, first of all. Second of all, a
conversation between Mr. Coutsoukis and
Ms. Samora, if it's not part of the
allegation, not part of the petition, not
part of direct examination, then I think
it's objectionable and I'm--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: This is part
of the petition and part of the
examination.
MR. DOMICELLO: Look, I don't
know what your holding, but it's
irrelevant what you're holding because
it's not in evidence.
THE COURT: What part of the
petition are you referring to?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: The one
where she said I harassed her by
telephone. And when we were here last
time, she discussed the conversation.
THE COURT: Well, why don't
you just ask her a question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Tell us if the phone conversation
is correct, whether it took place, and why you
found it upsetting.
MS. KOTLER: Objection, Your
Honor. This is a compound question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
MR. DOMICELLO: And it's
calling for a reasonable conclusion.
Q Tell us whether this conversation
took place.
A So what is the question now?
THE COURT: What--what--
Q And I'm going to read it.
THE COURT: What time--what--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: September
1998, Your Honor. It was the day she
filed the petition for an Order of
Protection.
THE COURT: What is the
question?
Q Susan, can we finish my discussion
first? This child is out of the house, out of
your sight from 9:30. Susan interrupts, Excuse
me, you're editorializing. (Inaudible). I'm
not editorializing. I'm asking, Susan. I know
what the story is. (Inaudible).
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
I'm going to object.
Q And you think that it's not
important.
MR. DOMICELLO: Mr.
Coutsoukis is testifying. He's not
asking a question.
THE COURT: Just a minute.
Q The question is--
THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis,
wait. There's an objection.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
Mr. Coutsoukis is testifying here. He's
not asking a question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I am asking
a question, whether the phone
conversation is correct. Whether that
took place.
THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis,
you're reading from a transcript that's
not in evidence, and therefore the court
will sustain the objection.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. I
would like to be able to present the
court with the facts of this matter,
namely, that there has never been
harassment by telephone to Susan. And
I'm trying to--
THE COURT: No. Mr.
Coutsoukis, you're making a statement
that you will have the right to make when
you testify. It is evidence. It's in
the nature of evidence. What your role
now is to ask her a question, not to
testify.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Yes, and I
think I should be allowed to ask her--
THE COURT: Not to testify.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I am not--
right.
THE COURT: And Mr.
Coutsoukis, further, again, every time I
make a ruling, you are argumentative.
Accept my rulings, please, and then
appeal it. That is the way to proceed.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Well, I
wanted to ask her--
THE COURT: But you are
requesting precious time of this court
for you to have an opportunity to defend
yourself, and that's what you should be
doing and that's what you should be
concentrating on. Not to debate every
single ruling that I make.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I apologize,
Your Honor. I just meant to ask her a
question. The question being, Was the
following conversation--did the phone
conversation take place? It is different
if I say it took place then if the
petitioner says it took place because she
is the accuser. And I would like her to
state whether or not it took place.
THE COURT: Again, Mr.
Coutsoukis, just ask the question,
please.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. But
I'm not allowed to ask if this
conversation took place you're saying?
Okay.
THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis,
move on.
Q Isn't it true that ever since
Teddy's birth you have attributed ill
intentions to my actions in order to justify
your denial of my access to her?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Can you tell the court what you
meant in response to, What did I do wrong? when
you replied, quote, "You just are," unquote?
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q How many incidents of telephone
harassment have you described during your
appearance in front of Judge Tolbert, the other
judge?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q How often do I call your home?
A I had an opportunity--
Q How often do I call your home?
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
A May I answer the question?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. KOTLER: He's not letting
her answer the question, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let her answer
the question.
A Okay. The last time we were in
this court, I guess it was December 1, I had an
opportunity to review the subpoenaed phone
records, and from the date in June continuing
on through September, there were some days
where there were six, seven, eight and nine
phone calls per day into my house at that time.
Q How many times were there nine
phone calls a day?
A There were quite a few times.
Q How many?
A I don't know, but--
Q Guess.
A I'm not guessing. The records--
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Not--
A The records--
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Was it more than ten or less than
ten?
A There is a--there is--
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
A There is a piece of paper that is
very voluminous in the annals of this court
that will tell you how many times you have
called my house, okay?
Q Okay.
A And it is voluminous. It is over
and above a normal phone conversation.
Q So until that last time from July
1998 until the last time we were in court,
would that be more than one hundred and fifty
phone calls?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Speculation--
Q Can you guess that it was--can you
estimate--
THE COURT: Look, I'm going
to sustain--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: --the objection
as to any answer that calls for her to
guess.
Q Did you not obtain an Order of
Protection from this court last year, September
9, 1997, the year before last, now, as a result
of a consent agreement which stated, quote, "No
electronic communication between the parties?"
Did you obtain--
A Could you ask that question again,
please. I'm not--I have--
Q Did you obtain an Order of
Protection from this court on September 9,
1997, which stated inter alia, quote, "No
electronic communication between the parties,"
unquote?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
I'm going to object. My client--
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Were you ordered by the Oregon
court to seek a modification of the Order of
Protection you got on September 9, 1997?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Well,
there's a pattern here of the Order of
Protection.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Outside the--
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Did I ever seek an Order of
Protection against you?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Can you please tell the court how
often I call Teddy, our daughter?
A Every night.
Q And do I have a choice in the
matter or is it entirely under your control,
your way?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
Q Is it your--
THE COURT: I'll allow it.
Q --choice?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Do you feel I should do like
you wish when you wish as you wish because you
got the kid?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Is it possible for me to call Teddy
without calling your phone and your answering
it?
A No.
Q And in your appearance before Judge
Bruce Tolbert, the other judge, did you not
say, quote, "He reads to her. He sings to her.
It's wonderful," end quote?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q When I call Teddy, do I read to
her? Do I sing to her? Is it wonderful?
A Lately, it has not been. You're
singing love songs. You used to read to her.
You used to be very positive. Now, you stay
quiet for twenty minutes of a half an hour
conversation. I don't understand what's going
on. She used to have a lot more fun when you
used to read--
Q Is it wrong--
A --read to her and sing fun songs
rather than, you know, love songs.
Q So you think it was wonderful at
the time you filed your complaint?
A Right.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
Q And when you--
MR. DOMICELLO: That wasn't
the testimony of my client. He just
asked the question, Was it more fun at
the time she filed the petition? That is
not the testimony of my client, so I
object to that question as to form.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the
objection.
Q When you said it was more fun then,
was it wonderful then?
A Yes.
Q And was it wonderful like a sweet
lullaby?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
How wonderful was it?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. It's irrelevant how
wonderful his conversation was.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Would you say that Teddy and I are
extremely found of each other?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Is your denial of access of Teddy
and me caused her (inaudible)?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Does Teddy enjoy her conversations
on the phone with me when I call everyday?
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Well, you stated last time that you
think from the--did you not say that she can
tell--even if she does not understand a word,
the demeanor will make her uncomfortable? In
particular, regarding the word, rape?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: She said
that. It's in the record.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Isn't it more often than not--isn't
it true that more often than not you talk
during my conversations with Teddy? You make
noises with teacups, you ask Teddy questions,
and other such activities?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Do you speak during my
conversations with Teddy?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll allow it.
A Do I speak to--? To who? To
Teddy? She could be showing me something or
asking me something. Yes, I do.
Q Okay.
A If she's engaging me, I'm going to
answer her.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
conversations between my client and her
daughter are not relevant in this matter,
and I'm objecting.
Q Isn't it true that your
hyperactive, attention deficit disorder makes
it impossible for you to stay still and quiet--
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q --during my conversations with
Teddy?
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q How long do my conversations with
Teddy last?
A Approximately thirty minutes.
Q And when did you start allowing
daily conversations on the telephone between me
and Teddy?
A After the summer vacation.
Q And isn't that because after she
spent time with me all of a sudden she started
learning things for the first time?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: What--what
is the objection?
THE COURT: Sustained. Move
on.
Q Did the conversations take place at
a usual time?
A Yes.
Q And are these times when I would--
other times when I would call earlier than the
designated time? Have there been times when I
called earlier than the designated time?
A Yes.
Q Are there times when I called Teddy
later than the designated time?
A Rarely.
Q On March 14, Sunday, when I called
to speak with Teddy--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I will
withdraw the question, Your Honor.
Q Do you consider my expression of
opinion about matters pertaining to Teddy's
health as harassment?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. It calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I beg your
pardon?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor
heard my objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DOMICELLO: You don't
need to.
Q Are you allowing daily
conversations now because the greater time I
spend on the phone offers greater opportunities
for you to find something to complain about?
MS. KOTLER: Objection
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Have there been times when you
would send a request by fax asking me to call
Teddy at a later time?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. It's irrelevant.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: We just
talked about it. We're talking about
repeated phone calls. If she sends a fax
asking me to call later, I have to call.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Mr. Coutsoukis has not filed
any Family Offense petition alleging
harassment. What my client sends him by
fax is not relevant--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: She sends a
fax asking me to call.
MR. DOMICELLO: --to
allegations of this petition.
THE COURT: Objection
sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: She's asking
me to call her.
THE COURT: Objection
sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Have there been times when I would
call Teddy and not be allowed to speak with her
by you? That you would not allow me to speak
with her?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll allow it.
A If it was an inopportune time, if
we just sat down for dinner or she was about to
get into her bath--
Q I didn't ask you why. I'm asking
whether there have been times when you--
A Yes, there was--there have been
times.
Q Thank you. Does your phone have a
volume control?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection.
A Yes--
THE COURT: I'll allow it.
Q Do you have the ability to turn the
ringer off if you don't want to receive phone
calls?
A Absolutely.
Q Would you say that my conversations
with Teddy give her and me great pleasure?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Mr.
Coutsoukis--
Q What--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Yes. I
apologize.
THE COURT: Just before you
go any further, I just want to give you--
I want to put you on notice now. I'm
going to let you continue for ten more
minutes, and then I'm cutting off cross-
examination.
Q How often did you allow me to speak
with Teddy before the time after my vacation
that you stated?
A As the--
Q Was it once a week?
A As the decree--as the decree--
custody decree or divorce decree noted.
Q I just asked you how many times.
A Once a week.
Q Once a week? Okay. And then after
her vacation we switched to daily, correct?
A Right.
Q Okay. And did you not prevent us
from speaking with each other in order to break
our strong bond?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Have you seen the medical and
educational records that I submitted to this
court and to the Oregon court when I petitioned
them to modify the custody and visitation
order?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Irrelevant.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Isn't it true that Teddy
deteriorated after my separation from her?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Isn't it true that more often than
not you would hang up the telephone in the
middle of our conversation after a few minutes,
prior to switching to daily? In other words,
when I had weekly--when I called Teddy weekly
as you stated, would you after a certain amount
of time hang up on us?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. It's irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Have there been occasions when you
said Teddy's not ready to speak with me and
that you would call back when ready?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Well, okay, we're talking about
repeated phone calls here. Has there been an
occasion when I would call a second time
because the first time you said you'd call back
for me to call back?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Mr. Coutsoukis is testifying
again.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Do you ring once and then that is
the signal for me to call you back?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And do you do that in order
not to pay for the cost of the phone call?
A Yes.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll chance it.
I'll allow it.
Q Does it follow then that a call
from my phone over to yours shown on my bill
could be a call that you initiated by ringing
my phone once--
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor,
the witness just testified and the
argument was that--
THE COURT: Your question is
not relevant--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: And I want to
move on and you should move on. You
don't have a lot of time left.
Q Is it possible that a call to your
number shown on my phone bill could be a call
that you initiated by ringing my phone once?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's
not relevant to this proceeding.
Q If, when I call, your phone is busy
or off the hook or you're having a long
conversation or on the internet, does it follow
that having gotten a busy signal I would keep
trying to call you?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor,
when somebody calls over and over when
the line is busy--
THE COURT: No. Mr.
Coutsoukis--
MR COUTSOUKIS: It shows on
that bill that she mentioned.
THE COURT: Please, move on.
Q After Teddy's vacation with me in
the beginning, have you allowed calls to Teddy
at different times such as Saturday mornings?
A Yes.
Q If I called Saturday morning and
you did not answer and I left a message on your
answering machine, would you sometimes return
the call?
A Yes.
Q And would that return phone call
normally consist of your ringing my phone once
and hanging up?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Isn't it reasonable for me to call
your number to try again to reach Teddy?
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q When you stated that you saw a
volume of repeated phone calls, is it possible,
did it occur to you that they were attempts to
call when you were not there or busy?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. My client is not an expert
on what would show up on the records of
Bell Atlantic Telephone Company.
THE COURT: Objection
sustained.
Q Did you call me to ask for money?
MR DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Have there been occasions when I
called Teddy and she was there and you said she
was not?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Did you and I have a conversation
on the telephone about the fax that you showed
to Judge Tolbert?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Can you tell the court why you
waited until Grandma left before you filed your
request for an Order of Protection?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Teddy's grandmother. Okay.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I'm at a
loss.
THE COURT: All right. Then
I'm going--
Q Is the letter--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. I'm
sorry.
THE COURT: I'll give you
five more minutes--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: But I am trying
to cut off any further questions at this
time.
Q In your testimony, did you state
that I considered you and two assistants at the
dentist holding Teddy down while the dentist
worked on her to be amounting to rape?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Well, this
is one of the things that she was
complaining about. I would like to
defend myself against the things she
complained about.
THE COURT: Why don't you
rephrase your question and--
Q Is it not--is it false--is it
inappropriate for a father to complain about
his young daughter, his little girl, being held
down by three adults while a professional is
working in her mouth? Is it--
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Is that harassment for a father to
make such a complaint?
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection.
Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Isn't it true that on February 19,
when Teddy and I were playing at the police
station, you asked the policeman to tell us to
leave?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor--
THE COURT: There's no
testimony about that. You haven't laid a
foundation for that question.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: And let me remind
you before you go any further that your
questions should be limited to her direct
testimony. And you have three more
minutes.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: To her
direct testimony? You mean when he was
asking questions, Mr. Domicello?
THE COURT: Yes, that's
what--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: That would
be a rebuttal. That would not be a
cross-examination, I believe.
THE COURT: No. No. Mr.
Coutsoukis, I'm talking about your cross-
examination of this witness.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: Forget his
rebuttal.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: He knows his job.
Q Isn't it true that you want the
visitation exchange limited to a short period
of time?
MS. KOTLER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Did you complain that the Ossining
Police Station is inappropriate for the
exchange because of the presence of policemen
and possibly prisoners?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
Q Can you tell us who chose the
Ossining Police Station as the place for the
exchange?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Isn't it true that before the
Ossining Police Station, for my request and as
granted by court, the exchange was taking place
at the Peekskill Police Station?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Can I ask
her to identify a document?
THE COURT: You have two more
minutes.
Q Last time--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Can we
bring, Your Honor, the exhibits that she
brought in?
THE COURT: Which exhibits?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: That is the
exhibit "1" that is a transcript from
1983.
THE COURT: Exhibit "1" is a
fax.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: No, there
was another exhibit which is a transcript
of a television show.
THE COURT: There is no
transcript of the television show in
evidence.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: With notes
in the margin from me.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: With notes
on the margin. Notes from me--
THE COURT: There is no
transcript--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: It was the
testimony last--
THE COURT: There's no
transcript of a television show in
evidence. It's now--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Can I
present a fax--this is a fax that I
received from the petitioner.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
it's improper.
THE COURT: This is a fax
that you received from this witness?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Asking me to
call.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's
not relevant to this proceeding. And
it's now 3:30, and at this time the court
is not going to permit any further cross-
examination. Any redirect?
MR. DOMICELLO: Yes, Your
Honor. I'm asking for a five-minute
adjournment. My redirect will consist of
the records, and I'd like to have a
chance to review them over the five-
minute adjournment.
THE COURT: All right. We'll
take a five-minute recess.
COURT OFFICER: Step out,
please.
(Off the Record)
* * *
THE COURT: Any redirect?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Your Honor,
may I say something for the record,
please? That I strenuously protest the
fact that since the petitioner fled to
New York, came to this court, where the
court similarly and without a hearing
separated me from my daughter. We have
come here over and over and over while
this court has refused to grant me one
single hearing. And that limiting the
time so strictly to where I can try to
get some facts out of the petitioner is
very prejudicial.
THE COURT: So noted. Okay.
Let's proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF MS. SAMORA
BY MR. DOMICELLO:
Q Ms. Samora, what is your telephone
number?
A Area code 914-941-2876, as of June
of this year--June of last year. Excuse me.
Q Is it true that at your direction I
subpoenaed the records of Bell Atlantic?
A Yes.
Q From the periods between--
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
I'd like to make a statement about these
records in the first place. I had an
opportunity to look at these records and
Ms. Samora had an opportunity to look at
these records. These records were in
perfect order when we looked at them.
All of a sudden, today, they're not. I
don't know whether or not Mr. Coutsoukis
had an opportunity to look at these
records or whether he did or not.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Objection.
I haven't been to this court since last
time once.
MR. DOMICELLO: I just want
that noted, Your Honor. They're in
disarray at this time and they were not.
THE COURT: All right. That
will be noted for the record.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I object to
these fallacious accusation that have
been thrown at me ever since I walked
into the state. I have not been in this
building since the last time.
THE COURT: Mr. Domicello,
let's proceed.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: And Mr.
Domicello--
COURT OFFICER: Sir?
THE COURT: Okay. No more.
Let her proceed. I'll allow a very few
questions on redirect. Just a couple of
questions.
MR. DOMICELLO: My questions,
Your Honor, will be limited to the phone
records there were subpoenaed.
Q That covers the period of the
filing of the petition and until present? Is
that correct?
A I believe so.
Q Is it true that on June 18, 1999,
Mr. Samora--Mr. Coutsoukis called your house
six times?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Objection.
She has no way of interpreting the
records as Mr. Domicello stated. These
records would show whether there's no
answer, they would show whether there's
an answering machine, they would show
when there's no ring.
THE COURT: She can testify
to that. She can answer that.
Overruled.
A As far as I read on the records.
Q July 3, seven times?
A As the records indicate.
Q July 7, eight times?
A Yup.
Q July 9, seven times?
A Yes.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: May I look
at those records, Your Honor, while she's
answering?
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I'm--
THE COURT: Well, he hasn't
asked to have them admitted into
evidence, but you shouldn't be asking her
questions from the documents if they're
not marked in evidence.
MR. DOMICELLO: I'm not. I'm
asking her whether or not the calls were
made, not whether or not they--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: She said from
the records the only place she can tell--
THE COURT: Just a minute,
Mr. Coutsoukis. Let me do this. You can
ask her of her own personal knowledge
whether she has that information.
Q To your own personal knowledge,
July 16, seven times?
A I don't know.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor, I
ask that these records be--
A I can--I can--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: She said she
doesn't know.
A I can speak of a pattern of
continuous calls, but to remember dates, I
don't remember.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: He didn't
ask about a pattern, Your Honor.
Objection.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
I'm requesting that they be marked for
identification.
THE COURT: Okay. They'll be
marked petitioner's Exhibit "4" for
identification.
MR. DOMICELLO: Oh, I'm
sorry. There's one more piece here.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr.
Domicello?
MR. DOMICELLO: There was
another part of it.
MS. SAMORA: It's all part of
it.
THE COURT: All right.
That's a part of Exhibit "4"?
MS. SAMORA: Yes.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Could I look
at that please?
THE COURT: Not now. It's
supposed to be admitted into evidence.
You'll have an opportunity to review it
(inaudible).
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
I'm requesting that these be marked in
evidence.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I have an
objection to that.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: My objection
is that these records are a violation of
the privacy of my colleagues, my
customers, my family, my friends and
myself, and this is not the kind of case
that merits taking every phone call made
in months into evidence. That's my
objection.
THE COURT: All right. Show
it to Mr. Coutsoukis and show it to the
law guardian.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I am not the
mafia. These are all January 1999
records.
MR. SAMORA: Look at the
date.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Oh--
MR. SAMORA: Top right.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Got it.
Those just show that most of the calls
have a duration of zero minutes.
MR. DOMICELLO: Objection,
Your Honor.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: It says
zero.
MR. DOMICELLO: Mr.
Coutsoukis is testifying.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Just so you
know.
THE COURT: All right. Ms.
Kotler?
MR. DOMICELLO: That's not
the basis for an objection.
MS. KOTLER: That's not a
basis for not admitting the documents
into evidence.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: No, I
understand. My objection was strictly on
the matter of violation of privacy.
THE COURT: I'll let the law
guardian review it and then I'll respond
to that.
MS. KOTLER: No objection,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. The
document will be admitted into evidence,
Exhibit "4". The court does not find
that there is a violation of anybody's
right to privacy. There may be other
people's telephone numbers. There's no
identification of that party or what the
conversations consisted of. The other
way to do it, Mr. Coutsoukis, would be
for you to stipulate that a certain
number of calls were made on certain
dates.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Well, I
would like to now--to second what Your
Honor said, mainly that there is no
indication as to the contents of the
conversations. These strictly indicate
an originating ring.
THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis,
are you willing to stipulate that on
certain dates that you did call her
residence a certain number of times?
MR. COUTSOUKIS: What I'm
stipulating is that when I call and
there's no answer, I can hang up and that
shows a zero charge over there. And that
what I'm--
THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis,
are you willing to stipulate on June 18
that you called her six times?
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
I'm requesting a stipulation on July 27
of twelve times.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I'm
stipulating that those were attempted
phone calls that were not complete
because they were not there or because I
got the answering machine and I hung up
hoping that maybe I'll catch them later.
That is not--zero--that's why it shows
zero seconds. That does not mean that I
made a phone call to her or that I spoke
with her or that I harassed her.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
Mr. Coutsoukis is testifying. He read
one page that said a zero minimum. We're
not sure--the records are not--
THE COURT: All right.
There's--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: You don't
know how many pages I read, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Mr.
Coutsoukis, there's clearly no
stipulation here. The document will be
admitted into evidence and will speak for
itself.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: What--I'm
sorry. There's no stipulation?
THE COURT: No.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I did
stipulate--
THE COURT: No. No, not--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: That I did
make calls and that they were not
answered.
THE COURT: No. That's--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: That's why
they show zero seconds.
THE COURT: Okay. That's
enough.
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor,
let the document speak for itself. I
have no further questions.
THE COURT: Okay. Any
questions, Mr. Coutsoukis? I'll give you
an opportunity to inquire on recross.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Are you
finished with your--
MR. DOMICELLO: Yes, sir.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: A couple of
questions.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: A couple of
questions.
THE COURT: You don't have to
repeat everything I say.
RECROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. SAMORA
BY MR. COUTSOUKIS:
Q Are there--were there occasions in
June and July when I would call and Teddy had
to go to the potty and I was asked to call back
in a few minutes or that you would call me back
as a signal to call back?
A I don't know if that occurred in
June or July, but it has occurred.
Q Were there times when you would say
Teddy is not ready to speak with me and that
you would signal me to call later?
A We addressed that, I thought.
Q Can you answer it, please?
MR. DOMICELLO: I'll object,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: It's been asked
and answered.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Would you
please give me those two pages, again?
Would the clerk please read those
pages again that Mr. Domicello mentioned,
the June and July dates for the phone
calls?
THE COURT: June 18, July 8,
July 16, July 27.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: July 8, and,
I'm sorry, what else? July?
THE COURT: July 8, July 16--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay.
THE COURT: July 27.
Q Okay. Where are those dates when
Teddy was on vacation at my house, in other
words, that she spent two weeks at a time at my
house, two weeks in June and two weeks in July?
A June 18th, she would have been--it
started on the 5th--she would have been at your
house.
Q Okay. And June 5th as well.
A June 12, same thing.
Q And July 8?
A July 8--
MR. DOMICELLO: Your Honor, I
believe I--well, I'm sorry, Your Honor.
I believe, July 7 and July 9--
Q Okay. July 7 and July 9, was Teddy
at my house on vacation?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Now, during Teddy's vacation
in my house, did I try repeatedly to contact
you so you can speak with Teddy to make her
transition smoother?
A I was allowed to speak to Teddy.
Q And did we call you many times
also?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And were there times when we
would call--perhaps were there times during
that period when you were not at home during
the course of the day?
A It's possible.
Q Okay. And during the times when
those phone calls were made, were you not at
home--were you absent from home?
A I don't know.
Q Okay.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Am I allowed
to ask questions from the previous
testimony, Your Honor? I didn't finish.
THE COURT: No. No, this
is--we--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Regarding
the visitation? No?
THE COURT: This is a
recross.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Strictly a
rebuttal.
THE COURT: Strictly a
recross.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Yeah. I
again protest there has not been enough
time for me to--
THE COURT: Okay. Any
questions?
MS. KOTLER: No, Your Honor.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: --to
(inaudible) on Susan.
THE COURT: All right. Thank
you for your testimony. You can go back
to your seat now. Any other witnesses?
MR. DOMICELLO: None, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: You rest?
MR. DOMICELLO: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Mr.
Coutsoukis, your turn.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Start with
testimony?
THE COURT: It's up to you.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. Or
can I produce argument?
THE COURT: You can make an
argument.
MR. COUTSOUKIS: I appreciate
that.
THE COURT: Is it--
MR. COUTSOUKIS: Last time I
was told my argument was testimony.
TH