|
|
 |
- Bartha v. Bartha, 15 A.D.3d 113 (1st Dep't 2005). Decided Jan. 27, 2005. This was an appeal from the trial court. Ms. Passonneau represented on appeal the plaintiff wife. The appellate division held for the wife on all points.The trial court had granted the wife a divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment, found the marital residence to be the husband's separate property, nonetheless awarded the wife a distributive award, awarded maintenance limited to three years, and denied her application for counsel fees. The husband appealed, claiming that the wife had not proven cruelty and was therefore not entitled to a divorce, and that in any event she was not entitled to any distributive award. The wife cross-appealed, arguing that the residence was marital property. As reported on the front page of the New York Law Journal, the Appellate Division, First Department, held that the residence was marital. Based upon the very thorough trial record, counsel was able to demonstrate that the account from which the downpayment for the purchase of the residence was made contained marital funds, thus the residence was marital property from the date of purchase. Moreover, affirming the grant of the divorce, the court held that "Defendant intentionally traumatized plaintiff, a woman of Jewish origin born in Nazi - occupied Holland, with swastika-adorned articles and notes affixed around their home. . . ". It further held that three years of maintenance was insufficient, and that the request for legal fees had to be reassessed in conjunction with any determintion of the Wife's share of the property on remand.
- On remand, it was found that the Wife is entitled to her fifty percent share of the Upper East Side Townhouse, she is entitled to attorney's fees, and she is entitled to maintenance of $5,000 per month until she is sixty - six, and the husband was ordered to pay a large part of the Wife's counsel fees.
- Mendez v. Hance & Hance. A Custody trial was concluded and a decision was issued in August 2002, awarding custody to the Father. Ms. Passonneau represented the Mother. She sought and obtained a stay of this change of custody order pending perfection of the appeal. Ms. Passonneau's client continued to have custody throughout the appeal. While the appellate division affirmed the lower court, the client retains custody as, after the passage of time and liberal visitation access, the father has declined to exercise his right.
- Anonymous v. Gloria Rodriguez and the Department of Social Services. Ms. Passonneau sucessfully obtained the vacatur of a previously entered child support order owing to the fact that the alleged father had not been properly served, thirteen years ago, while he was in the military, DNA tests proved he is not the father, and all money paid to the Department of Social Services was refunded to the client.
- People v. Anonymous. After a four day jury trial, and after fifteen minutes of deliberation, Ms. Passonneau's french speaking client was acquitted of charges stemming from the allegation that he, together with his co-defendant, kidnapped a woman whom he had known since birth. During the alleged kidnapping, the group of three stood on the street in front of her house and smoked a pack of cigarettes, and the evidence established that she had been free to leave during the entire time period of the alleged kidnapping. Ms. Passonneau showed at trial that the alleged victim made up the story to protect herself from the anger of a man she feared.
- Davis v. Kelly. On appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The defendant was tried twice in the New York State Court. His first trial terminated in a mistrial because the jury hung ten to two for acquittal. His retrial did not occur until over three years later, and he was then convicted after less than one hour of jury deliberation. The Second Circuit rejected the argument that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, and denied the petition for rehearing.
- Calderon v. United States. Petitioner argues on appeal that in cases of sentencing entrapment, where government agents have unilateral and complete control over sentencing factors, the sentencing is governed by the seminal supreme court case Apprendi v. New Jersey.
- Anonymous v. INS. Supervisory Detention Enforcement Officer restored to duty subsequent to agency removal of officer from his position. The officer had served seventeen years in an exemplary manner, and was close to retirement eligibility. Ms. Passonneau showed that the agency could not meet its burden of proof. The removal was found to be too severe a penalty for a man with such an exemplary record, he was restored to duty, with back pay, and his right to his law enforcement pension was restored.
|
|
|
