Docstoc

New York Family Tree Affidavit

Document Sample
New York Family Tree Affidavit Powered By Docstoc
					SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
…………………………………………………………..
PETER PETROV, pro se,
        Plaintiff,

        -against-
                                                                       AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
Mariya Basheva-Petrova,                                                TO MOTION FOR
              Defendant.                                               EVIDENTIAL HEARING
-------------------------------------------------------------------X   Index No.:21006-05




STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) ss:

PETER PETROV, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I’m the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter and make this affidavit in support of this Motion
for Evidential Hearing

I. In an Affidavit in Support and Verified Answer and Counterclaim to the Order to Show
Cause signed on March 27, 2006 Defendant alleges under penalty of perjury that:

    1. Plaintiff has transferred approximately $180,000 to his native Bulgaria in order to
    evade taxation (see Exhibit 1 and 2)
This is a knowingly false statement. Plaintiff has never transferred any before tax money to
Bulgaria. Plaintiff has never owned $180,000 therefore he had no chance to transfer it anywhere.
(see Exhibit 3 – Plaintiff’s statement of net worth and Exhibit 4 – Plaintiff’s brokerage account
statement)

    2. Plaintiff owns $477,903.00 in stocks (see Exhibit 1)
This is a knowingly false statement. Plaintiff has never owned more than $35,000 in stock during
his entire life.
(see Exhibit 3 – Plaintiff’s statement of net worth and Exhibit 4 – Plaintiff’s brokerage account
statement)


    3. Plaintiff’s entire financial portfolio is over one million dollars (see Exhibit 1)
This is a knowingly false statement. Plaintiff’s financial portfolio (including stocks, bank
accounts and retirement accounts) has never exceeded $140,000
(see Exhibit 3 – Plaintiff’s statement of net worth and Exhibit 4 – Plaintiff’s brokerage account
statement)
    4. During a family dispute Plaintiff hit multiple times and tried to throw Defendant out
    of the car while speeding on I-95 (see Exhibit 2)
This is a knowingly false statement.
Defendant’s different accounts of the incident differ dramatically and are clearly ratcheted up as
the time goes on.
In her Family Offence Petition dated October 31, 2005 Defendant claimed that she was hit
several times by Plaintiff who stated “I want you to die, I hate you”. Defendant did not mention
anything about the attempt to be thrown out of the fast moving vehicle (see Exhibit 5)

One month later on December 7, 2006 she stated in a written statement before detective Robin
from Westchester County Police that Plaintiff told her that “He wants to kill her”

Five months later in a Verified Answer and Counterclaim, signed on March 27, 2006 Defendant
ratcheted up again the charges, representing them as assassination attempt – she claimed that
“Plaintiff attempted to throw the Defendant out of the moving vehicle” (see Exhibit 2)

It is incredible that the quintessence of the charges - the assassination attempt – was not reported
to the police on the day of the incident, or two days later on her Family offence petition, but five
months later.

The only meager support Defendant has of her allegations of being hit by her husband is a
diagnosis of a mildest grade concussion issued by the Stamford Hospital. This grade of
concussion has only symptom – confusion. Confusion can be easily miss-attributed to a person
like the Defendant, whose English is not good and was lying before the doctor.

The allegations were nolled by a Criminal Court in the State of Connecticut.
(see Exhibit 6b)

The fact of the incident are that the defendant tried to grab the steering wheel and steer it while
Plaintiff was driving on I-95 in an attempt to stop and get off the car on the interstate. Plaintiff
pushed her away by using his forearm to prevent an accident.
This fact can be established by a sworn statement by a family friend, whom the Defendant told
over the phone that she indeed grabbed the steering wheel of the vehicle “in order to prevent
crashing the car in a road-side tree” (of course, there are no trees along I-95).
(see Exhibit 6a)

II. In the Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause signed on March 27, 2006
Defendant lied that she was unable to work in the US until she obtains her permanent
Alien Registration Card (see Exhibit 1)
The fact is that Defendant as a V-visa holder was eligible to work in the US since she entered the
country for the first time in May 2003;
She does not need to wait until she gets a Green Card;
All she needed to do was to apply for an Employment Authorization Document, which she
finally did in January 2006 (according to her oral statement before the Court). She must have
received an answer within 3 months after the application
(see Exhibit 7a)
III. In her sworn application for pro bono attorney as well as in her affidavit in Support of
Order to Show Cause signed on March 27, 2006 Defendant lied about her ineligibility to
work in the US and misstated that she does not own any real estate property
    1. The fact is that Defendant as a V-visa holder is eligible to work in the US (see paragraph
        II. above)
    2. Even if she declared in a Financial Affidavit to the Family Court, signed in November
        2005 that she co-owns an apartment in Sofia, Bulgaria, one month later, when she applied
        for a pro bono attorney, she stated that she does not own any property. As a result she
        was granted a pro bono attorney by Judge Nicolai that she was not entitled to.
    3. Defendant failed to declare in the Financial Affidavit to the Family Court, signed in
        November or in her Statement of Net Worth, signed in March 2006 at least one bank
        account in Bulgarian Post Bank (as of November 14, 2006, there were $523.34 in the
        account)
(see Exhibit 7b)

IV. During an appearance in February before Hon. Walker, Defendant lied about her son’s
being ineligibility to attend the school to the Bulgarian Consulate in NY
Defendant claimed that the conditions for admission in the Bulgarian School have suddenly
changed to the end that her son was no more admissible to attend the Sunday classes he used to
attend for more than six months until he was stopped by his mother on November 1, 2006.
As it can be seen from the statement signed by the School director and from the child’s teacher,
the child is always welcome to go to the school.
(see Exhibit 8)

V. In the Statement of Net Worth, attached to Order to Show Cause signed on March 27,
2006 (see Exhibit 10), Defendant declared values of the real estate owned by her
significantly differing from the value, declare in November 2005 in her Financial
Disclosure Affidavit (see Exhibit 9)
The value declared in the November 2005 Affidavi is $15,000, while the value declared in her
March Statement of Net Worth is $30,000, with ?total value of real estate zero?.
(Exhibits 9 and 10)


VI. In the Statement of Net Worth, attached to Order to Show Cause signed on March 27,
2006, Defendant failed to declare the value of the furniture (Exhibit 10)
As shown in the attached letters exchanged between the Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s attorney, the
fear market value of the furniture that Defendant took from the family apartment exceeds $2500.
In her statement of Net Worth however, the Defendant failed to declare the value of the furniture
(see Exhibit 11)

VII. Defendant constantly lies before the court in order to deprive her son from time with
his father and father from parenting time with his son
    1. During an appearance on November 10, 2006 before the Family Court, Defendant
    alleged that the parties’ son was afraid of Plaintiff.
This is a knowingly false statement. According to the YWCA report prepared for the court
appearance on December 8, when the child saw his father after 2 weeks of forced separation, the
child “smiled, hugged and kissed his father”.
According to a certified psychiatrist Dr. Leon Tec, Plaintiff is not a violent person and does not
represent any danger to his wife.
(see Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13)

    2. During a court appearance on January, 2006 before the Supreme Court, Defendant
    alleged that “she is afraid that Plaintiff might kidnap their son”.
This is a knowingly false statement. Her allegation is based on:
a) a statement made by Plaintiff in a letter to the head of YWCA supervised visitations program,
in which he states that he “will do everything to be able to see his child”.
b) the fact that during a supervised visit the Plaintiff told his son that he expects to be able to
show him the new Stamford apartment in less than 3 weeks time (implying his hope that regular
visitations would be granted in less than 3 weeks).
(see Exhibit 14)

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows:
  1. Award physical custody of the parties’ child to Plaintiff.
  2. Order Defendant to return to Plaintiff all the money collected as maintenance using false
     statements
  3. Order Defendant to pay Plaintiff his legal and other reasonable expenses, associated with
     his fight against false allegations.




Dated: …………..., 2006                                                          _________________
White Plains, New York                                                          PETER PETROV

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:849
posted:11/18/2010
language:English
pages:4
Description: New York Family Tree Affidavit document sample