HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-02488
,
--,
I I . ~
( I
: :' , L.
')
(,:' ')
L , C' :
, , I ,
( ,,-
.
, ,
"
~. . ~
/'oJ
-. "0
~ ~\~
\0 ) .-...
~ ......)
ls\:)
~
~
-
4
-n
.
"'...,
"')
.
\)
-.;:t- ft
In'"'1$
;~~
.
o
.
Il:: '
o ~ ~ Q
~ 0" '"
~ 0 ..
~ , ..
o~o~~
o ..:l ~ ~ '"
.. fool = ~ t;-
o <( Ul ~ ~
:d ~ ~~
o ~ w 1, i'3
=09~~
~5o~l~
Il. " ..
. ~ ~
Cl '" ~
~
u
LISA NEIDIG,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. q1- J,l.{f6'6 ~
VS.
STEVEN NEIDIG,
Defendant
CUSTODY
PRAECIPE
TOTHEPROTHONOTAR~
Please file the attached custody decree in accordance with 23 Pa.C.S. 5356.
Respectfully submitted:
BYj;J2.~;./c, &k",,,----
G. atrick O'Connor, Esquire
3105 Old Gettysburg Road
Harrisburg, PA 170 II
717-737-7760
Attorney 1.0. #64720
Attorney for Defendant
DATE:
1fp-/tiQ
,
>- !~?
c: -
i~
t.'J C' r:~;" ":) ."
c.J , ,
[,: ,
.:.::..... ";'.,
I_l_ I:: ,
," :::",j
"' " \,:) ;~
C'J , ,
"-' , ('.; :>
-..1 I
G_' .. 'J
,-. ;~~.:: :.L
U.. C\ :'J
(.:' .::7'1 '..l
~
.......
""
'.
'.
..
"
_.
~
At a Matrimonial Special Tenn, Part 22, of the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in
and for the County of Erie, at 50 Delaware A venue
in the City of Buffalo, New York,
PRESENT: DAVID J. MAHONEY, J.S.C.
Presiding Justice
Plaintiff,
l'T1 ~
;>:l
Fii ...
n ::z:
0 ~ 'TI
c: -.I r-
:z m
-I .."
-< :II: 0
ORDER FOR FILING (") r
r- .,
fTI 0
::a -a
INDEX NO, 12596/94 ::<
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF ERIE
LISA NEIDIG
-vs-
STEVEN NEIDIG
Defendant.
d1 qq- d.4~'6
F.I ", tJ
~
That the parties to the above entitled action through their attorneys, Carol D, Collard,
Esq" attorney for the Plaintiff, and Patrick C, O'Reilly, Esq., attorney for the Defendant,
having jointly submitted this order to correct and facilitate the filing of this Court's order of
December 2, 1997, it appearing that the original order executed by this Court is no longer
available for filing, and upon said joint submission, it is
ORDERED, that the Erie County Clerk shall accept for filing, Nunc Pro Tunc as of
December 2, 1997, simultaneously herewith, the copy of the Order executed by this Court in
the above entitled matter on December 2, 1997. which Order is annexed hereto and made a part
hereof.
...
"/, .d
~ DAV J. MAHONEY. J.S.C.
I""'>
GRANTED:
~. :'.,
G f. /It. .~:
~
14
.
,..
-- ~
.
.~
,ir,.
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ERIE, SS:
I, DAVID J. SWARTS, Clerk of said County, and also Clerk
of Supreme and County Courts of said County. do hereby
certify that I have compared the annexed copy with the original
ORDER
filed in my office and thatthesame isa correcttranscriptlhere-
from and of the whole of said original.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said County and Courts on_
day of APR 1 5 ms19_
! /? Isl ......... ~
7Y~l~~LERK
':"',
~.!.
i
/
"
~-
...
. '.
,"
,.
as his share of day care costs for the parties child, Jeanette, for
the period of August of 1995 up to and including August 17, 1997;
and it is further
ORDERED, that the Plaintiff shall turnover to Defendant the
search and survey for the former marital residence and any joint
income tax returns in Plaintiff's possession; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant shall supply proof of life insurance
coverage to Plaintiff showing a death benefit of $100,000.00 on his
life with the Lisa ..Neidig, in Trust for the parties' child,
Jeanette Neidig, named as irrevocable beneficiary; and it is
further
I ORDERED, that the Defendant shall sign an Authorization
I authoriZi~9 Lisa Neidig to obtain proof that the life insurance
coverage 1S in effect; and it is further
j ORDERED that Defendant shall sign an authorization authorizing
I '
i Lisa Neidig to obtain copies of all processed claims statements
from Defendant's Blue Cross & Blue Shield health plan for medical
claims that Plaintiff submits to Blue Cross & Blue Shield on behalf
of parties' child, Jeanette Neidig, and if Blue Cross & Blue Shield
I will not supply the statements pursuant to the authorizati'on, this
I
I Court will sign an Order direct~ng Blue Cross & Blue. Shield to send
. said copies of the statements to the Plaintiff; and it is further
I
! ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that the Stipulation of
II settlement entered into between the parties in open Court on
:ISeptember 8, 1997 is hereby incorporated but not merged into this
I
';Order including all of the terms pertaining to telephone access and
!
:visitation,
'J ri:E'C (f., \991ig ~_~
-~
./ ~ r"\
.....-- D,9VI , J. rnt;rlt; IJlq ,TSc.
..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
~
;; 16
..
I 17
g
~ 18
..
a: 19
t
..
!! 20
w
~
2
ll! 21
a:
w
3 22
Ii
u
~ 23
24
25
.
2
THE COURT, Afternoon.
MR, O'REILLY, Afternoon.
THE COURT, Before we get started, I wanted
to give you my decision on this motion. We have a
motion in limine before us which, in effect, is an
effort by defendant's counsel to confine the
court's consideration of add-on child support in
the form of child care as set forth in the
stipulation dated March 4th, 1995, incorporated
but not merged into the divorce decree, to a
period restricted to the time following the
court's decision, October 1996 to January 1, 1997.
Whether a motion in limine is strictly appropriate
or not in this case I will not go into. The
motion affords us an opportunity, however, to deal
with the threshold question, and that is, how far
back should we go in determining what the
plaintiff should be reimbursed for pursuant to the
said stipulation in view of our decision of
October 1996. I am prepared at this time to
decide that question. First, let me say that the
Order herein was not agreed upon by counsel until
April 9th, 1997, or shortly prior to that time.
The Orde" that eventually emerged does little to
Official Court Reporter
.
1
.
,
3
2
assist us in disposing of this issue, in my
opinion. At the same time, the court's decision
}'
3
4
was ambivalent on the issue of add-ons because it
5
urged the parties to settle the matter and
6
indicated we would go into the issue only if it
7
was necessary. The court's decision, of course,
8
moved the issue of how much the appropriate basic
9
child support should be back from 1998 to January
10
1997. I was concerned about Jeannette and whether
11
her needs had become caught up in the relocation
12
and visitation dispute between the parents,
13
therefore had been overlooked. The stipulation
14
itself speaks at pages 10 and 11 of, quote, any
15
day-care expenses that will be incurred by Mrs.
!
16
Neidig for Jeannette as a result of her
17
employment, leaving out a few words, will be paid
g
~
4
~
i
~
I
~
~
~
~
18
as provided in the Child Support Standards Act,
19
end of quote. As I mentioned earlier, the CSSA is
20
also referred to with respect to the basic -- with
21
respect to basic child support in the stipulation.
22
I note no opting out. The problem, as often
23
occurs in these matters when the plans and
24
representations of the parties do not pan out, the
25
stipulation itself, by the way, is silent about
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I IG
17
8
d 18
~
~
~
E 19
~
2 20
~
w
E 21
E
w
3 22
3
~ 23
~
24
25
~
4
how much -- about much of the negotiations that
went on between the parties. Suffice it to say
that Mrs. Neidig wound up in Jim Thorpe,
Pennsylvania, and only recently was able to secure
employment, I understand, as a paralegal. There
is no mention of the plaintiff relocating to
either Jim Thorpe or Harrisburg in the stipulation
but merely Pennsylvania. I should say, also, that
there was no evidentiary hearing conducted leading
to the October '96 decision, counsel having
submitted the matter, and of course counsel in
this case was not -- did not include Mrs, Collard,
and there being complete agreement between them.
I was permitted to go ahead and decide the issues
on the record and submissions, My October
decision clearly indicated, as I said earlier,
that while I was reluctant to increase the basic
child support under the circumstances pursuant to
the stipulation, I felt that the 65/35 percent
income ratio had lost its viability as far as
Jeannette's interests were concerned and did not
conform to reality because the defendant was
earning more and the plaintiff had not secured
higher-paying anticipated employment, She was
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
"
~ 16
a
I 17
S
d 18
~
~
~ 19
~
! 20
w
~
2
w 21
~
~
w
~ 22
~
u
g 23
~
24
25
5
only able to find work in Jim Thorpe off'the
books, as I understand' it, as a part-time waitress
while attending community college. The defendant
had been making additional maintenance payments
under the stipulation. So that under the
circumstances, I felt a recalculation of child
support in Family Court was appropriate in January
1997. I did, however, leave open add-ons from '95
to January 1, '97. Mr. Neidig had, by the way,
voluntarily commenced payment of an increased
amount of basic child support based on his 1996
income, as I understand it. In my opinion, the
primary concern of the court should be the welfare
of Jeannette, and I see child care, at least the
defendant's share of child care expense incurred
while the plaintiff was actually working in
Pennsylvania, to be a matter -- to be a matter
related to this paramount concern. If a law
guardian were present, I'm sure she would agree
with me that the law requires us to put -- to put
aside the issues between the parties related to
broken promises, misrepresentations, visitation,
issues, maintenance, counsel fees, etc., and
ensure that this child be afforded adequate day
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i 16
17
8
d 18
~
.
~ 19
B 20
~
w
E 21
E
g 22
~
~ 23
~
24
25
6
care, at the very least. She was not a party to
the deal struck between the parties. The fact the
plaintiff has already paid for child care, if
that's the case, is irrelevant, The big problem
here, as indicated in my October 1996 decision,
was that we did not at that time have sufficient
evidence of these expenditures, only a blunderbuss
allegation, if I recall correctly. Since there
was no agreement on settling this issue, as I had
hoped, I will hear evidence today as to the actual
expenses incurred by the plaintiff for child care
while she was working, in line with the tenor of
the stipulation, allowing reimbursement of child
care expense. During the times the plaintiff
elected to go to community college will not be
included, In other words, I'm not including
reimbursement for that -- for child care during
that period of time. Now, these expenses will be
considered, under this limitation, back to the
time of the plaintiff's move to Pennsylvania and
should be limited to the ratio set forth in the
stipulation, which I think was viable through that
period. I would also add that I anticipate that
there's receipts for these child support __
w
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i 16
17
g
f 18
.
~
" 19
~
! 20
~
i 21
"
3 22
~
g 23
~
24
25
7
MS. COLLARD' Yes, there are.
THE COURT, -- expenditures? Okay. Okay?
Now, off the record.
(Discussion held off the record.)
MR. O'REILLY, Your Honor, in an
off-the-record discussion, after the review of
documents that were pt'oduced on Friday, the
parties have agreed that the issue of any arrears
in day care payments, Mr. Neidig's contribution
towards day care payments up to and including __
and including August 17th, 1997, will be settled
in the amount of 1,900 dollars, so that is
everything from August of '95 through August of
'97, last month, We do have other outstanding
issues.
THE COURT, I realize that, Let me just ask
Miss Collard, you heard that figure, I guess
that's the settled figure as far as you're
concerned?
MS. COLLARD: Yes, it is, Your Honor,
THE COURT: And that's agreeable to your
client?
MS. COLLARD: Yes, it is, yes.
THE COURT, Okay. Mr. Neidig, that's
Official Court Reporter
,
(
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I 16
17
g
i 18
~
E 19
~
~ 20
~
~
~
~ 21
E
3 22
5
~ 23
24
25
8
agreeable to you; is that right?
THE DEFENDANT, Yes,
THE COURT: You've had a chance to talk to
Mr. O'Reilly about it?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. And likewise, Mrs. Neidig,
you've talked to Mrs. Collard?
THE PLAINTIFF: Yes.
MS. COLLARD, And that would be paid within
one month of today's date, Your Honor.
THE COURT, Okay. Let's go off the record a
minute.
(Discussion held off the record.)
THE COURT: I understand that -- I've been
talking to the parties off the record -- that
there's a search and survey that Mrs, Neidig has,
and that she's agreeable to turn that over to Mr.
Neidig as soon as convenient.
MS. COLLARD, That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay. And there's other things,
tax returns and so forth, that she mayor may not
have, but she's going to look to see if she has
them and report that back. She, in any event, has
the '94 return?
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ft
ij 16
I 17
8
d 18
~
2
4
C
~ 19
~
ffi 20
~
~ 21
c
3, 22
5
! 23
~
24
25
10
authorization that allows Lisa once 'a year to ask
the insurance company if it continues to be in
place, the coverage you just showed to me,
MR, O'REILLY, I don't have any problem with
that.
THE COURT, Once a year?
MS. COLLARD: Yes. She's not going to be
hounding the insurance company. And also, counsel
has agreed that his client will sign an
authorization for Blue Cross and Blue Shield to
send copies of all processed claims statements to
the plaintiff for medical claims that plaintiff
submits to Blue Cross and Blue Shield for coverage
on behalf of Jeannette, the parties' child.
MR, O'REILLY: We will sign an authorization,
but we certainly don't warrant whatever Blue Cross
and Blue Shield will do with it.
MS. COLLARD, That's fine.
THE COURT, That's understood?
MS. COLLARD: Yes.
THE PLAINTIFF: Excuse me. When I spoke with
Blue Cross and Blue Shield and I asked them about
this situation, they instructed me that they would
require a Court Order in order to send me copies
Reporter
;"...-.... .,
1
11
2
of the statements because I'm not the subscriber
('
under that policy.
3
4
THE COURT' Well, we'd be glad to sign such
5
an Order, but it seems to me maybe Mr. Neidig
6
would sign something, they'd accept that.
7
MS. COLLARD' All right. So he'll either
8
sign the authorization or even if he signs an
9
authorization, they still require a Court Order,
10
we will prepare the Order, copy counsel before
11
it's submitted to the court for the court's
12
signature.
13
THE COURT: Okay, fine. Now, that brings us
14
near the end, and there's an issue concerning
15
visitation, as I understand it. The sharing of
i
i
8
.;
~
"
.
..
w
~
~
~
w
..
..
w
~
~
~
~
telephone numbers shouldn't be a problem.
16
17
MR. O'REILLY: It's not the sharing of the
18
telephone numbers, it's access, Judge.
19
THE COURT: I'm sorry, access.
20
MR. O'REILLY: It's access, telephone access,
21
THE COURT: Telephone access, okay. In other
22
words, each party has the other's numbers, so
23
there's no problem about that, but access,
24
MS. COLLARD: Why don' t we do a schedule that
25
Mr. Neidig will have telephone access three times
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i 16
17
8
d 18
Z
~
ffi 19
:
2 20
~
~
2
~ 21
~
~
w
~ 22
J
5
u
g 23
~
24
25
13
seven and eight? What's the best time for you on
a Monday and a Thursday evening? The child is
obviously home, she has to go to bed for school.
Anytime between seven and eight or eight or seven.
THE PLAINTIFF, Can I think about it for a
few minutes?
MS. COLLARD, Yes.
(Discussion held off the record.)
MS. COLLARD, 7,45,
MR. O'REILLY: Until when, 8:30?
MS. COLLARD, Well, bedtime is 8,30.
THE COURT: We ought to have a window,
though.
MS. COLLARD: Right,
THE COURT: Can't get a call through or the
line is busy.
MS. COLLARD' Not that he's going to hang on
there for 45 minutes.
THE COURT, Or. if he doesn't call at 7'45,
that at 7:46 no calls are accepted. It's got to
be a reasonable period.
MS. COLLARD: Why don't we say 7:45 through
8:30? That's when the child goes to bed.
MR. O'REILLY, On Mondays and Thursdays?
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i 16
17
8
d 18
~
~
c 19
~
! 20
~
~ 21
c
~
3 22
~
I 23
24
25
17
also take place in Pennsylvania. Mr. Neidig will
pick the child up on Friday at 7:30 a.m. and
return her on the following Monday at 6 p,m. At
this juncture his parents will also be allowed to
return the child, if need be, On Easter, both
this would be now '98 and '99, the child will be
transported to Grand Island by Mrs. Neidig by Good
Friday at 11:30 p,m. and will be picked up on
Easter Sunday at 3 p.m., both of these at Mr.
Neidig's home. On Memorial Day Mr. Neidig will
pick the child up at Mrs. Neidig's home on Friday
at 5'30 p.m. and return her to Mrs. Neidig's home
on Monday at 2 p.m. And on the Fourth of July,
and this would be the summers of '98 and '99, Mrs.
Neidig shall transport the child to Mr. Neidig's
home on Friday this coming Fourth of July, that
would be July 3rd, at 1 p.m. in Grand Island and
pick her up on the following Sunday, July 12th, at
3 p.m. in Grand Island, New York. I assume that
in 1999 it will be the same, Friday to Sunday, but
I think the Fourth of July is on a Sunday, so it
would be Friday, July 2nd, to Sunday, July 11th,
if I have it going in the right direction, r
believe I do. Then in the year -- the alternating
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I 16
17
g
~ 18
~
~ 19
! 20
~
II! 21
c
~ 22
~
~ 23
.
24
25
18
year will start now with the school year '99-2000,
and in that year the schedule is going to be
changed with regard to Christmas and Easter and
will be supplemented with respect to Father's Day,
but other than that, the Columbus Day, the
Presidents' Day, the Memorial Day and the Fourth
of July visits will stay the same. In those
alternating years Mr. Neidig will pick the child
up on December 24th at noon in Harrisburg and will
return her to Harrisburg on January 2nd at noon..
In those years Mrs. Neidig will have the child for
the following Easter, and there will be no Easter
visitation by Mr. Neidig. However, in those years
only there will be visitation on Father's Day
whereby Mrs. Neidig will transport the child to
Grand Island on Friday at 11,30 p,m. and pick her
up in Grand Island on Sunday at 3 p.m.
.In addition, I believe it was agreed,
although I haven't confirmed this with counsel,
that any notices of activities or other
extracurriculars of the child will be forwarded in
due course by Mrs. Neidig to Mr. Neidig. There
will also be telephone contact between Mrs. Neidig
and the child during reasonable hours while the
L:
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
" 16
li
i 17
fi
d 18
S
~
~ 19
I! 20
w
~
~
II! 21
a:
3 22
~
~ 23
~
24
25
19
child is with Mr. Neidig for periods of
visitation. That's my understanding.
MS. COLLARD, As far as the notices are
concerned, we agree that whatever the stipulation
requires Mrs. Neidig to do she will do as far as
notices of the activities. I can't remember if
she's to notify the school that Mr, Neidig has
access to that. I don't believe she's required to
ship copies to him, but whatever the stip says or
the Judgment of Divorce is what Mrs. Neidig will
do.
MR. O'REILLY: That is part of the relief
we've requested by way of the Order to Show Cause
that's before the court now. We simply ask that
the notices be forwarded so that in the event
there's a recital or a moving up day or ceremony
that the child is going to be attending, that Mr.
Neidig has notice in advance so he may make plans
in advance to come down and attend, if he so
desires.
MS. COLLARD, I understood the motion to be
an enforcement that counsel brought of what was
Mrs. Neidig's obligation under the Judgment of
Divorce, I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but that's
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
" 16
~
i 17
g 18
.;
~
.
c 19
~
~ 20
.
~
I 21
c
3 22
~
g 23
~
24
25
20
what she's prepared to do. It does have language
in there about what she's supposed to do, it could
very well be notice, I don't know. Does anybody
have it?
THE COURT: Well, that's fairly common
language.
MS. COLLARD: Sometimes we don't require the
mailing and all of that, though. Let me just see.
I have it here. It says here Mr, Neidig -- this
is page five will have full access to all
educational, medical records of Jeannette, full
access to her school schedule, report cards, any
extracurricular activities that Jeannette may
become involved in, such as any sporting
activities, music lessons, riding lessons,
whatever she may become involved in in the course
of her life. Mrs. Neidig will. provide Mr. Neidig
with any schedules, again of any sporting events,
if she's enrolled in those, or, if she enrolls in
music, any recitals or special events, school
plays and the like so that he, at his option and
his schedule, may be afforded the ability and
opportunity to attend those functions with
Jeannette.
Official Court Reporter
,
"
;:<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i 16
17
8 18
d
S
.
0: 19
~
S 20
~
:r 21
0:
3 22
~ 23
~
~
24
25
21
THE COURT, Well, I presume that Mrs, Neidig
will live up to the -- that portion of that
stipulation.
MS. COLLARD: Yes, she will, Your Honor.
THE COURT, What more would you need? Maybe
could the school send these notices out? After
all, Mr. Neidig is the father,
MS. COLLARD: Let me just read a little bit
more, Your Honor. Just to supplement what you
just said, this is Mr. O'Reilly speaking on the
record, "And it is also agreed that anyone having
those sorts of records, medical, health
professionals, teachers and the like, can rely on
this stipulation as authority to provide Mr.
Neidig with any records he may wish to have
directly or to discuss Jeannette's progress with
him, "
MR. O'REILLY: That's correct. We're simply
asking that in due course thi.ngs as simple as
report cards and teacher evaluations make their
way to Mr. Neidig, even -- he may not know there's
an evaluation going on or that there's a report
card, to go down to the school and do it.
THE COURT: You'll agree on that, I believe.
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
" 16
~
; 17
~
g 18
.;
!I
~
a: 19
~
III 20
..
~ 21
il'
a:
~ 22
!3 23
2
g
~
24
25
22
will agree -- it's very detailed and I think it
MS. COLLARD, Well, I said, Your Honor, we
does require Mrs. Neidig to provide schedules of
extracurricular activities, but it does say that
Mr. Neidig will have full access and that she
would sign any authorizations, and I think that's
the way to leave it with school records, because
then there's no obligation on her part to try to
get documents up to Western New York.
THE COURT: It just seems to me maybe the
school would be happy to send this. On the other
hand, let's try to keep -- I direct this to both
parties, Let's keep the avenues of communication
open as much as Possible with regards to
Jeannette. If there's any information that the
father should have about her progress at school,
it should be made available to him and everybody
act reasonably. I think we can keep what I feel
is an important relationship going here for
Jeannette. She doesn't want to have her father
kept in the dark, I'm sure. If she were here to
Speak or there was a law guardian, I'm sure that
would be expressed on her behalf, So I can't
believe that Mrs. Neidig doesn't subscribe to that
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
! 16
17
S 18
d
!i
..
'" 19
~
~
Z! 20
~
~
~ 21
~
a:
'"
3 22
~
" 23
2
~
~
24
25
23
arrangement. Do the best you can to keep the
father informed. And if we could implement the
provisions of the stipulation which provide him a
right to obtain information from the school, you
know, the Lord helps those who help themselves, so
he, it seems to me, could follow up on that, too,
but let' s -- let's -- instead of erring on the
side of conservatism here, let's err on the side
of liberality, if Possible, for Jeannette's sake,
okay? Does that take care of everything, Mr.
O'Reilly?
MR. O'REILLY, The only other issue in our
notice of motion was on -- was the request as far
as attorney's fees and sanctions are concerned, I
assume there will be no agreement as to those, and
I would ask for simply the right to submit by
quantum meruit application.
MS. COLLARD: We also have a countermotion
for attorney's fees.
THE COURT, Let me tell you this, If we
resolve this, as I'm hopeful we are today, I'm not
going to entertain applications on either side.
MS. COLLARD: There's one other issue.
THE COURT, I want this to end today.
Official Court Reporter
1
24
2
MS. COLLARD, All right.
3
THE COURT: I'm sorry, go ahead.
4
MS. COLLARD' I'm sorry, I didn't mean to
5
interrupt you, Your Honor, When my client is up
here, when she has visitation with her father up
6
7
here, you want some telephone access?
8
MR. O'REILLY: I said that.
9
MS, COLLARD, And counsel agreed, but I think
10
we should probably schedule it so that it's not
11
just wide open.
12
THE PLAINTIFF: Whenever Jeannette is in his
13
custody, whether it's in Pennsylvania or in the
14
Buffalo area.
15
MS. COLLARD: All right. Can we hit on a
i
g
d
i
.
~
a
~
!
16
little bit of a schedule like we did for the
17
father?
18
MR. O'REILLY, Can we go off the record?
19
THE COURT: Sure,
20
(Discussion held off the record.)
21
THE COURT: Let me just say this again, in
c
~
5
u
~
~
22
line with what I said before to the parties
23
regarding keeping the lines of communication open,
24
Jeannette is going to get older here, she's not
25
fixed in time, in fact that's why we're working so
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i 16
17
8 18
0
~
~
. 19
~
~
~ 20
~
~
~ 21
~
~
~
3 22
~ 23
~
24
25
26
between Lisa Neidig and Mr. Neidig's current wife
would be kept to an absolute minimum.
THE COURT, Well, I think that's probably
something that would be preferred, is that right,
by your client as well, Mr. O'Reilly?
MR. O'REILLY' That's fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, we didn't get on the
record, I don't think, Linda, correct me if I'm
wrong, this final item with regards to when Mr.
Neidig has Jeannette up here and maybe might take
her to Toronto or something. Could you put that
on the record so we have that.
MR. O'REILLY: It's my understanding, Your
Honor, that during the three periods a year that
Jeannette is here in the Western New York area,
assuming Mr. Neidig is going to have her at his
residence, she will be available during the middle
day for a telephone contact from Mrs. Neidig
during the same hours as provided earlier in the
stipulation for Mr. Neidig, and that if there is
some vacation plans that will take her away from
his residence during any of those three periods,
Mrs, Neidig will be provided with notice of that
in advance.
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i 16
17
g 18
d
,~
..
..
.. 19
~
::! 20
w
~
~ 21
w
..
..
3 22
..
l:l 23
~
~
24
2S
27
THE COURT, Okay, fine. Before we recess, I
wanted to ask -- I'll ask Mr. Neidig first.
You've been here, Mr, Neidig, throughout this
whole proceeding, which has been the entire
afternoon, it's now after five?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And you've talked to Mr.
O'Reilly, you've heard this agreement placed on
the record. Is it acceptable to you, do you find
it reasonable and fair and not unconscionable in
any way?
THE DEFENDANT: No, the agreement itself is
very fair. The way it \<i'as arrived at was
something I certainly wouldn't want to go through
again.
THE COURT: I'm just asking you --
THE DEFENDANT: But yes.
THE COURT: in this limited form.
THE DEFENDANT: I understand.
THE COURT: The quality of the process we
could deal with at some other time, but in any
event, you agree with what I had said before about
how you arrived at this agreement or at least how
you arrived at yes to this agreement?
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
! 16
17
g 18
;
..
.. 19
5
L
I 20
~
:r 21
..
g 22
~'
~ 23
~
24
25
28
THE DEFENDANT, Yes,
THE COURT' Okay. Mrs. Neidig, I'll ask you
the same question. YOU've been here, YOU've heard
this put on the record. It's -- you've been
represented by Miss Collard, and she's talked to
you about this agreement. Are you in full accord
with the agreement?
THE PLAINTIFF: There are a couple details
that I'd like to bring up to make sure that's
clarified.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, now's the time.
THE PLAINTIFF, We talked about contact with
Jeannette when she's in BUffalo, but I was also
referring to any time that she is in his care for
visitation, whether it's in Pennsylvania or
BUffalo, that the access to her be extended as
welL
THE COURT, I think we talked about that, and
that's acceptable, subject to this reasonable
issue of maybe some travel or something of that.
sort.
THE PLAINTIFF, I understand that.
THE COURT: I think again, if you keep these
lines of communication I keep talking about open,
Official Court Reporter
1
2
,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
~ 16
ij
I 17
8
oj 18
~
..
.. 19
~
12 20
..
~
~
.. 21
..
..
~ 22
5i
u
~ 23
24
25
29
you'll know that Mr. Neidig -- obviously he's not
going to do this probably at the spur of the
moment, he'll be able to tell you we're going to
Toronto or we're going to be in Niagara Falls or
we're going to some other place with Jeannette,
and it may be difficult to implement this access
thing, so it's a matter of really exchanging this.
If you have to do it in writing, do it in writing,
but exchange information so that you know what' s
going on and we don't have a big problem __ or, a
little problem turn into a big problem, I SUppose
is what I'm trying to say.
THE PLAINTIFF, Okay. I assume that when
Carol brought up about Mr. Neidig's wife creating
some problems, that I will have absolutely no
further contact with her, and I would also
appreciate if she does not show up during the
pickup and dropoff times as well.
THE COURT: Well--
MR. O'REILLY: It's not intended that she
will transport the child; however, if Mr. Neidig
is dropping the child off on his way home to
Western New York, I'm certain his wife will be in
the car with him so that she may go home.
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
~ 16
Q
I 17
8
d 18
!i
..
rr: 19
~
::! 20
w
~
~
it 21
rr:
3 22
~
~ 23
~
24
25
30
MS. COLLARD: And that would not be
considered contact if his wife is in the car when
the child gets dropped off.
THE COURT: Again, we have to operate with a
rule of reason, We're in a world where there are
second wives, second Spouses, that may even happen
to you, I don't know, in the future, and you've
got to understand that they do have some
influence, they have some say in these things, and
they sometimes intrude, they think theY're looking
out for their spouse and so forth, and that's
unfortunate, maybe, from the other side's point of
view, but you've got to realize that we're trying
to keep Jeannette's interests and welfare
uppermost.
THE PLAINTIFF: I understand that.
THE COURT: So subject to what was said, I
think there's no there's not going to be any
attempt to try to have a direct contact between
yourself and Mrs. Neidig, certainly, but she's
certainly free to be in the car and things like
that, and I'm not going to issue any Orders of
Protection or anything of that sort. I don't see
any basis for it, and I know -- I'm counting on
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
! 16
17
g
~ 18
.
I 19
ffi 20
~
~ 21
~
3 22
~
g 23
~
24
25
31
the parties to act as adults and keep their child
in mind at all times in connection with this
matter, but I don't think I got a yes from you on
those questions I put before. This is stuff we
have to put on the record.
THE PLAINTIFF' I understand, I just have to
say that a I'm a little bit leery because of
things that have happened in the past that were
not specifically set down in exact words, so there
was a lot of ambiguities.
THE COURT: Well, we have a greater degree of
specificity in this stipulation as opposed to the
stipulations in the divc=ce, although that was as
specific as they come, usually, but hopefully this
will promote harmony as opposed to create
disharmony. We can only do the best we can as of
this moment as we speak. I want your assent to
this agreement, that's all I'm asking.
THE PLAINTIFF, I agree.
THE COURT, Okay. I think that takes care of '
things.
MR. O'REILLY: Thank you. Your Honor.
MS. COLLARD: Thank you. Your Honor.
THE COURT, Thank you. I'd like to thank
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 16
17
g 18
ci
~
d
~ 19
! 20
~
Ii! 21
j 22
~ 23
~
24
25
32
counsel because this has been difficult for them
as well as the parties, I appreciate it.
MS. COLLARD: We appreciate your help, Your
Honor.
THE COURT, It's not easy. Thank you very
much,
(Proceedings concluded.)
Official Court Reporter
(-,: ~
.J~'
'"
) '{:
,J 'I
>-
'"
J \)..
i ~
"
~ "I
.;j ~
~
. .
" '
,,;or .,.
G. PJ\TJUCK O'CONNOR
..
,'\"I-IUI(_'I-:\';\T 1.1\\\'
:IIU!\ 01.11 (';I~ .T\''''lIl'I(O UnAh
eAMI' .111.1., "1~tr",\,..~nA 17011"720H
l''';J.I~J.U(Il''''':: 717.,.1"-7700
-.
. .
.,
o
"
~ ':
~ ~ ~ ~
o ~ 0 " ,:
~,"n ~
o <( ~ i>' ~
:d g ~
o ~ ~ ~
soo~~
~ ~ 9 Ii: =:
~<~~~
. ~ =: ~
o "110
~
"
~
..
4PR 2 7 1999
)
~
~'
, ,
-/'
6. That on December 2, 1997, it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that the
said StipuJation was incorporated into an Order granted by the Supreme Court of the
County of Erie, State of New York, to be indexed to number 12596/943. (Said Order is
identified as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated herein by reference.)
7. TIlat on March 15, 1999, an Order for Filing of the said Order of
December 2, 1997, was granted Nunc Pro Tunc and filed on March 17, [999, in the
Clerk's Office of Erie County, New York. (Said Order is identified as Exhibit "C" and is
incorporated herein by reference.)
8. That on or about April 26, I 999, the Orders and StipuJation as stated
above were filed in the office of the Prothonotary of the County ofCumberJand,
PennsyJvania, in accordance with 23 Pa.C.S. 5356, providing for the filing and
enforcement of custody decree of another state.
9. TIlat said StipuJation and Order provide that the Father is to have
telephone access to his Daughter on each Monday and Thursday from 7:45 p.m. until 8:30
p.m.
10. That said Stipulation and Order further provide a visitation schedule for
the Father so that he can be with his Daughter on certain holidays starting at a specific
time of day.
11. TImt because the opportunities for visitation are limited because the Father
and Daughter live far apart, the Father places a high value on the time he has allotted for
telephone access and visitation.
~
...
, .
~:
12. That the Daughter's therapist has stated that the telephone access and
visitation are important to the mental health and welfare of the Daughter.
13. That the Respondent regularly violates the terms of the StipuJation by
taking the child away from the home on Monday and Thursday evenings, with the resuJt
that the Father is denied the opportunity to speak with his daughter on 40% to 50% of the
evenings to which he is entitled by Order of Court.
14. That the Respondent violates the terms of the StipuJation by regularly
dropping off the child for visitation much Jater than specified in the Stipulation, with the
result that the Father's visitation time with the child is substantially reduced from that
provided by Order of Court.
15. That said actions by the Respondent to clearly thwart the right of the
Petitioner are in violation of the Order and cIearJy in contempt of said Order identified as
Exhibit "B."
16. That as a result of the Respondent's contempt by failure to follow a lawful
Court Order of another state, the Petitioner has incurred $ I ,320 in travel expenses, court
fees, and attorney's fees in order to enforce the decree in PennsyJvania.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that this Honorable Court:
I. Hold the Respondent in contempt;
2. Compel the Respondent to abide by the lawful Court Order;
3. Provide make-up time for the Petitioner at the convenience of the
Petitioner;
/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
M 16
M
i 17
S
ci 18
~
2
.
~ 19
~
~
~ 20
~
~
~
~ 21
~
~
~
~ 22
~
u
! 23
~
24
25
."
. .
~
"
2
THE COURT, Afternoon.
MR. O'REILLY: Afternoon.
THE COURT: Before we get started, I wanted
to give you my decision on this motion. We have a
motion in limine before us which, in effect, is an
effort by defendant's counsel to confine the
court's consideration of add-on child support in
the form of child care as set forth in the
stipulation dated March 4th, 1995, incorporated
but not merged into the divorce decree, to a
period restricted to the time fOllowing the
court's decision, October 1996 to January 1, 1997.
Whether a motion in limine is strictly appropriate
or not in this case I will not go into. The
motion affurds us an opportunity, however, to deal
with the threshold question, and that is, how far
back should we go in determining what the
plaintiff should be reimbursed for pursuant to the
said stipulation in view of our decision of
October 1996. I am prepared at this time to
decide that question. First, let me say that the
Order herein was not agreed upon by Counsel until
April 9th, 1997, or shortly prior to that time.
The Order that eventually emerged does little to
Official Court Reporter
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
"
ij 16
~
i 17
0
u
~ 18
2
.
~ 19
~
i
~ 20
~
2
~ 21
~
~
~
M
~ 22
$
u
~ 23
~
24
25
~.
. .
.
3
assist us in disposing of this issue, in my
opinion. At the same time, the court's decision
was ambivalent on the issue of add-ons because it
urged the parties to settle the matter and
indicated we would go into the issue only if it
was necessary. The court's decision, of course,
moved the issue of how much the appropriate basic
child support should be back from 1998 to January
1997. I was concerned about Jeannette and whether
her needs had become caught up in the relocation
and visitation dispute between the parents,
therefore had been overlooked. The stipulation
itself speaks at pages 10 and 11 of, quote, any
day-care expenses that will be incurred by Mrs.
Neidig for Jeannette as a result of her
employment, leaving out a few words, will be paid
as provided in the Child Support Standards Act,
end of quote. As I mentioned earlier, the CSSA is
also referred to with respect to the basic -- with
respect to basic child support in the stipulation.
I note no opting out. The problem, as often
occurs in these matters when the plans and
representations of the parties do not pan out, the
stipulation itself, by the way, is silent about
Official Court Reporter
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
! 16
17
8
d 18
~
2
4
~ 19
~
~ 20
I!!
2
w
~ 21
~
~ 22
~
:1
2 23
~
.
24
25
... . .
.'
4
how much -- about much of the negotiations that
went on between the parties. Suffice it to say
that Mrs. Neidig wound up in Jim Thorpe,
Pennsylvania, and only recently was able to secure
employment, I understand, as a paralegal. There
is no mention of the plaintiff relocating to
either Jim Thorpe or Harrisburg in the stipulation
but merely Pennsylvania. I should say, also, that
there was no evidentiary hearing conducted leading
to the October '96 decision, counsel having
submitted the matter, and of course counsel in
this case was not -- did not include Mrs. Collard,
and there being complete agreement between them.
I was permitted to go ahead and decide the issues
on the record and submissions. My October
decision clearly indicated, as I said earlier,
that while I was reluctant to increase the basic
child support under the circumstances pursuant to
the stipulation, I felt that the 65/35 percent
income ratio had lost its viability as far as
Jeannette's interests were concerned and did not
conform to reality because the defendant was
earning more and the plaintiff had not secured
higher-paying anticipated employment. She was
Official Court Reporter
-----
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
~ 16
i 17
g
0 18
~
2
~
~ 19
~
~ 20
~
~
~
~ 21
~
~
~
~
~ 22
$
u
2 23
~
~
24
25
. .
, ,
..
.'
5
only able to find work in Jim Thorpe off the
books, as I understand' it, as a part-time waitress
while attending community College. The defendant
had been making additional maintenance payments
under the stipulation. So that under the
circumstances, I felt a recalculation of child
1997. I did, however, leave open add-ons from '95
support in Family Court was appropriate in January
to January 1, '97. Mr. Neidig had, by the way,
voluntarily commenced payment of an increased
amount of basic child support based on his 1996
income, as I understand it. In my opinion, the
primary concern of the court should be the welfare
of Jeannette, and I see child care, at least the
defendant's share of child care expense incurred
while the plaintiff was actually working in
Pennsylvania, to be a matter -- to be a matter
related to this paramount Concern. If a law
guardian were present, I'm sure she would agree
with me that the law requires us to put __ to put
aside the issues between the parties related to
broken promises, misrepresentations, visitation
issues, maintenance, counsel fees, etc., and
ensure that this child be afforded adequate day
Official Court Reporter
. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
..
ij 16
i 17
g
d 18
~
..
a:
~ 19
L
..
':l 20
~
~
..
a: 21
a:
..
~ 22
~
I 23
24
25
,.. "
6
care, at the very least. She was not a party to
the deal struck between the parties. The fact the
plaintiff has already paid for child care, if
that's the case, is irrelevant. The big problem
here, as indicated in my October 1996 decision,
was that we did not at that time have sufficient
evidence of these expenditures, only a blunderbuss
allegation, if I recall correctly. Since there
was no agreement on settling this issue, as I had,
hoped, I will hear evidence today as to the actual
expenses incurred by the plaintiff for child care
while she was working, in line with the tenor of
the stipulation, allowing reimbursement of child
care expense. During the times the plaintiff
elected to go to community college will not be
included. In other words, I'm not including
reimbursement for that -- for child care during
that period of 'time, Now, these expenses will be
considered, under this limitation, back to the
time of the plaintiff's move to Pennsylvania and
should be limited to the ratio set forth in the
stipulation, which I think was viable through that
period. I would also add that I anticipate that
there's receipts for these child support --
Official Court Reporter
. .
, .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I 16
~ 17
0
u
.; 18
~
..
.. 19
~
Ii! 20
"'
~
~
"' 21
..
..
"'
"
~ 22
..
l:l
~ 23
~
24
25
'.'
"
7
MS. COLLARD: Yes, there are.
THE COURT: -- expenditures? Okay. Okay?
Now, off the record.
(Discussion held off the record.)
MR. O'REILLY: Your Honor, in an
off-the-record discussion, after the review of
documents that were produced on Friday, the
parties have agreed that the issue of any arrears
in day care payments, Mr. Neidig's contribution
towards day care payments up to and including __
and including August 17th, 1997, will be settled
in the amount of 1,900 dollars, so that is
everything from August of '95 through August of
'97, last month. We do have other outstanding
issues.
THE COURT: I realize that. Let me just ask
Miss Collard, you heard that figure, I guess
that's the settled figure as far as you're
concerned?
MS. COLLARD: Yes, it is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And that's agreeable to your
client?
MS. COLLARD: Yes, it is, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Neidig, that's
Official Court Reporter
. .
. ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
~
ij 16
~
.
~ 17
S
.; 18
~
2
..
.. 19
~
Ii! 20
"'
~
~
"' 21
..
..
~ 22
..
l:l
~ 23
~
24
25
.'
8
agreeable to YOu; is that right?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: You've had a chance to talk to
Mr. O'Reilly about it?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. And likewise, Mrs. Neidig,
you've talked to Mrs. Collard?
THE PLAINTIFF: Yes.
MS. COLLARD: And that would be paid within
one month of today's date, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Let's go off the record a
minute.
(Discussion held off the record.)
THE COURT: I understand that -- I've been
talking to the parties off the record -- that
there's a search and survey that Mrs. Neidig has,
and that she's agreeable to turn that over to Mr.
Neidig as soon as convenient.
MS. COLLARD: That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay. And there's other things,
tax returns and so forth, that she mayor may not
have, but she's going to look to see if she has
them and report that back. She, in any event, has
the '94 return?
Official Court Reporter
,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
M
ij 16
~
..
8 17
..
.;
u
.; 18
~
2
..
..
"' 19
!<
L
Ii! 20
~
..
2
"'
.. 21
..
"'
..
~ 22
..
..
u
2 23
i5
~
24
25
. .
. .
.'
.'
9
MS. COLLARD: That's correct, yes.
MR. O'REILLY: Also, for the record, Your
Honor, I'm showing counsel proof of the 100,000
insurance coverage.
MS. COLLARD: All right. And counsel will
supply me with a copy of this.
THE COURT: That was the other item as far as
your cross-motion was concerned, Miss Collard?
MS. COLLARD: Yes.
THE COURT: Proof of ongoing life insurance
coverage?
MS. COLLARD: Yes.
THE COURT: And are you satisfied now you
have that?
MS. COLLARD: Yes, Your Honor, once I get
supplied with a copy of it.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, now that --
MS. COLLARD: And he will also sign an
authorization so that she can find out from this
insurance company that it's continually in place.
I don't think counsel will have a problem with
that.
MR. O'REILLY: What's that?
MS. COLLARD: Your client will also sign an
Official Court Reporter
I
"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
J.4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
. .
. .
.'
10
authorization that allows Lisa once a year to ask
the insurance company if it continues to be in
place, the coverage you just showed to me.
MR. O'REILLY: I don't have any problem with
that.
THE COURT: Once a year?
MS. COLLARD: Yes. She's not going to be
hounding the insurance company. And also, counsel
has agreed that his client will sign an
authorization for Blue Cross and Blue Shield to
send copies of all processed claims statements to
the plaintiff for medical claims that plaintiff
submits to Blue Cross and Blue Shield for coverage
on behalf of Jeannette, the parties' child.
MR. O'REILLY: We will sign an authorization,
S
lZ
2
..
..
"'
:
on
l5
~
"'
..
..
"'
~
5
~
~
but we certainly don't warrant whatever Blue Cross
and Blue Shield will do with it.
MS. COLLARD: That's fine.
THE COURT: That's understood?
MS. COLLARD: Yes.
THE PLAINTIFF: Excuse me. When I spoke with
Blue Cross and Blue Shield and I asked them about
this situation, they instructed me that they would
require a Court Order in order to send me copies
Official Court Reporter
.'
. .
. .
1
12
2
a week?
3
THE COURT: Now, refresh my memory on
4
Jeannette. She's getting older now.
5
MS. COLLARD: Seven?
6
THE PLAINTIFF: She'll be seven the end of
7
October.
8
THE COURT: What are her hours? When does
9
she get to bed?
10
MS. COLLARD: She's in school full time. And
11
what time does she go to bed?
12
THE COURT: Usually.
13
'rHE PLAINTIFF: About B: 30.
14
MS. COLLARD: All right.
15
THE COURT: So keep that in mind. Now, would
~
ij
~
i
s
.;
~
..
..
~
Ii!
"'
~
Ii!
~
ili
u
2
i5
~
16
these be calls that Mr. Neidig would make or would
17
it be calls coming out to him?
18
MS. COLLARD: I think it's calls that Mr.
19
Neidig would make is what he's pursuing here. He
20
wants to be able to talk to his daughter when he
21
calls at a specific scheduled time.
22
MR. O'REILLY: My client said Monday and
23
Thursday between seven and eight would be fine or
24
7: 30 and 8: 30 would be fine.
25
MS. COLLARD: Monday and Thursday between
Official Court Reporter
~
~
.
~
i
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
. .
13
seven and eight? What's the best time for you on
a Monday and a Thursday evening? The child is
obviously home, she has to go to bed for school.
Anytime between seven and eight or eight or seven.
THE PLAINTIFF: Can I think about it for a
few minutes?
MS. COLLARD: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record.)
MS. COLLARD: 7:45.
MR. O'REILLY: Until when, 8:30?
MS. COLLARD: Well, bedtime is 8:30.
THE COURT: We ought to have a window,
though.
MS. COLLARD: Right.
THE COURT: Can't get a call through or the
.;
u
.;
~
2
..
..
~
Ii!
"'
~
"'
..
..
"'
..
~
ili
u
2
i5
~
line is busy.
MS. COLLARD: Not that he's going to hang on
there for 45 minutes.
THE COURT: Or if he doesn't call at 7:45,
that at 7:46 no calls are accepted. It's got to
be a reasonable period.
MS. COLLARD: Why don't we say 7:45 through
8:30? That's when the child goes to bed.
MR. O'REILLY: On Mondays and Thursdays?
Official Court Reporter
r
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.' .,
14
MS. COLLARD: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay, great.
MS. COLLARD: So now we're down to the
visitation schedule.
MR. O'REILLY: Yes, Your Honor, and I've just
worked up notes on a hand
MS. COLLARD: Let me give this to the judge.
MR. O'REILLY:
a handwritten proposal. It
might be better for counsel and I to sit together
for a couple minutes to see where we are on it.
THE COURT: All right. Now, let me just get
the parameters here, maybe help a little bit, if I
,
can. Mr. Neidig'S job is what; what kind of
schedule does he have that would impact on
~
ij
!
s
.;
~
2
..
..
"'
:
..
..
"'
~
..
2
"'
..
..
"'
~
visitation here?
MS. COLLARD: Your Honor, what we've done is
take Mr. Neidig'S proposed schedule that was
attached to his motion papers, and we are working
with his schedule. I persuaded my client that
that's where we're going. We are in agreement
..
"
u
2
i5
~
with practically everything on it, but the only
differences are pickup and dropoff times because
her employment has changed, but let us go through
it first and see if we can isolate the specific
Official Court Reporter
j
a
s
.;
~
2
..
..
~
Ii!
"'
~
Ii!
~
.'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
. .
15
problems for the court, then maybe the court can
help us, but at least we have a general calendar.
MR. O'REILLY: Right.
MS. COLLARD: Which is based on his proposal.
MR. O'REILLY: We'll work off their notes,
although we have a discrepancy as to how big the
difference is. The schedule was made up by my
client in light of the fact he could only take off
ten days a year.
THE COURT: Well, talk it over. If you need
me on an informal basis, let me know.
MR. O'REILLY: Okay.
MS. COLLARD: Thank you, Judge.
(Discussion held off the record.)
THE COURT: I understand that after
considerable discussion, we may have an agreement
on t.he final points; is that correct?
MR. O'REILLY: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Could you tell us, Mr.
O'Reilly.
..
..
u
~
MR. O'REILLY: Yes. With respect to the
visitation schedule, the parties have agreed to a
schedule, which I'll set forth, and we're starting
with years, such as from today through the Fourth
Official Court Reporter
M
~
I
s
o
~
.
..
..
~
Ii!
"'
~
"'
..
..
"'
~
~
2
i5
~
.'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
of July next summer would be deemed the '97-'98
school year. And we've agreed that for the
'97-'98 school year and for the '98-'99 school
year the schedule will be the same. Starting with
the '99-2000 school year there will be an
alternation of Christmas, which will then
alternate like that every even year thereafter.
For the '97-'98 school year and the '98-'99 school
year the parties agree that the scheduled visits
shall be as follows: On the Columbus Day weekend
Mrs. Neidig will transport the child to Grand
Island to Mr. Neidig'S home by Friday at 11:30
(
p.m. She will pick the child up on Sunday at 3
p.m. For the Christmas holiday, that will be
Christmas '97 and Christmas '98, Mr. Neidig will
travel to Pennsylvania on December 24th and pick
the child up at 7:30 a.m. He will return the
child that day at 8 p.m. He will then pick the
child back up on Christmas day, December 25th, at
5 p.m. and return her to her mother's home in
Pennsylvania on December 30th at 6 p.m. At Mr.
Neidig's option, a member of his family, such as
his parents, may effect that transportation. The
next visit would be on Presidents" Day, it would
Official Court Reporter
M
ij
i
s
.;
~
..
i
Ii!
~
Ii!
~
~
~
~
.'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
also take place in Pennsylvania. Mr. Neidig will
pick the child up on Friday at 7:30 a.m. and
return her on the following Monday at 6 p.m. At
this juncture his parents will also be allowed to
return the child, if need be. On Easter, both
this would be now '98 and '99, the child will be
transported to Grand Island by Mrs. Neidig by Good
Friday at 11:30 p.m. and will be picked up on
Easter Sunday at 3 p.m., both of these at Mr.
Neidig's home. On Memorial Day Mr. Neidig will
pick the child up at Mrs. Neidig'S home on Friday
at 5:30 p.m. and return her to Mrs. Neidig's home
on Monday at 2 p.m. And on the Fourth of July,
and this would be the summers of '98 and '99, Mrs.
Neidig shall transport the child to Mr. Neidig's
home on Friday this coming Fourth of July, that
would be July 3rd, at 1 p.m. in Grand Island and
pick her up on the following Sunday, July 12th, at
3 p.m. in Grand Island, New York. I assume that
in 1999 it will be the same, Friday to Sunday, but
I think the Fourth of July is on a Sunday, so it
would be Friday, July 2nd, to Sunday, July 11th,
if I have it going in the right direction, I
believe I do. Then in the year -- the alternating
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
~ 16
ij
~
i 17
S
.; 18
~
2
..
.. 19
~
Ii! 20
"'
~
~
"' 21
..
..
"'
~ 22
ili
u
~ 23
~
24
25
18
year will start now with the school year ' 99-2000,
and in that year the schedule is going to be
changed with regard to Christmas and Easter and
will be supplemented with respect to Father's Day,
but other than that, the Columbus Day, the
Presidents' Day, the Memorial Day and the Fourth
of July visits will stay the same. In those
alternating years Mr. Neidig will pick the child
up on December 24th at noon in Harrisburg and will
return her to Harrisburg on January 2nd at noon.
In those years Mrs. Neidig will have the child for
the following Easter, and there will be no Easter
visitation by Mr. Neidig. However, in those years
only there will be visitation on Father's Day
whereby Mrs. Neidig will transport the child to
Grand Island on Friday at 11:30 p.m. and pick her
up in Grand Island on Sunday at 3 p.m.
.In addition, I believe it was agreed,
al though I haven't confirmed this with counsel,
that any notices of activities or other
extracurriculars of the child will be forwarded in
due course by Mrs. Neidig to Mr. Neidig. There
will also be telephone contact between Mrs. Neidig
and the child during reasonable hours while the
Official Court Reporter
.'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I 16
17
S
.; 18
~
..
~ 19
:
..
.. 20
"'
~
~
Ii! 21
..
~ 22
ili
u
~ 23
~
24
25
19
child is with Mr. Neidig for periods of
visitation. That's my understanding.
MS. COLLARD: As far as the notices are
concerned, we agree that whatever the stipulation
requires Mrs. Neidig to do she will do as far as
notices of the activities. I can't remember if
she's to notify the school that Mr. Neidig has
access to that. I don't believe she's required to
ship copies to him, but whatever the stip says or
the Judgment of Divorce is what Mrs. Neidig will
do.
MR. O'REILLY: That is part of the relief
we've requested by way of the Order to Show Cause
that's before the court now. We simply ask that
the notices be forwarded so that in the event
there's a recital or a moving up day or ceremony
that the child is going to be attending, that Mr.
Neidig has notice in advance so he may make plans
in advance to come down and attend, if he so
desires.
MS. COLLARD: I understood the motion to be
an enforcement that counsel brought of what was
Mrs. Neidig's obligation under the Judgment of
Divorce. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but that's
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
M 16
ij
a
N
~ 17
..
.;
u 18
.;
~
2
..
.. 19
"'
~
..
.. 20
"'
~
~
L
"' 21
..
..
"'
~ 22
ili
u
2 23
i5
~
24
25
20
what she's prepared to do. It does have language
in there about what she's supposed to do, it could
very well be notice, I don't know. Does anybody
have it?
THE COURT: Well, that's fairly common
language.
MS. COLLARD: Sometimes we don't require the
mailing and all of that, though. Let me just see.
I have it here. It says here Mr. Neidig -- this
is page five will have full access to all
educational, medical records of Jeannette, full
access to her school schedule, report cards, any
extracurricular activities that Jeannette may
become involved in, such as any sporting
activities, music lessons, riding lessons,
whatever she may become involved in in the course
of her life. Mrs. Neidig will provide Mr. Neidig
with any schedules, again of any sporting events,
if she's enrolled in those, or, if she enrolls in
music, any recitals or special events, school
plays and the like so that he, at his option and
his schedule, may be afforded the ability and
opportunity to attend those functions with
Jeannette.
~
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I 16
17
S 18
~
..
.. 19
~
:! 20
"'
~
~
Ii! 21
..
~ 22
~ 23
~
~
24
2S
THE COURT: Well, I presume that Mrs. Neidig
will live up to the -- that portion of that
stipulation.
MS. COLLARD: Yes, she will, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What more would you need? Maybe
could the school send these notices out? After
all, Mr. Neidig is the father.
MS. COLLARD: Let me just read a little bit
more, Your Honor. Just to supplement what you
just sai.d, this is Mr. O'Reilly speaking on the
record, "And it is <\lso agreed that anyone having
those sorts of records, medical, health
professionals, teachers and the like, can rely on
this stipulation as authority to provide Mr.
Neidig with any records he may wish to have
directly or to discuss Jeannette's progress with
him."
MR. O'REILLY: That's correct. We're simply
asking that in due course things as simple as
report cards and teacher evaluations make their
way to Mr. Neidig, even -- he may not know there's
an evaluation going on or that there's a report
card, to go down to the school and do it.
THE COURT: You'll agree on that, I believe.
Official Court Reporter
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
M 16
!i
~
.. 17
~
S IB
Ii!
2
..
.. 19
"'
:
Ii! 20
"'
~
f 21
"'
..
..
::l 22
c
~
~ 23
2
i5
~
24
25
22
MS. COLLARD: Well, I said, Your Honor, we
will agree -- it's very detailed and I think it
does require Mrs. Neidig to provide schedules of
extracurricular activities, but it does say that
Mr. Neidig will have full access and that she
would sign any authorizations, and I think that's
the way to leave it with school records, because
then there's no obligation on her part to try to
get documents up to Western New York.
THE COURT: It just seems to me maybe the
school would be happy to send this. On the other
hand, let's try to keep -- I direct this to both
parties. Let's keep the avenues of communication
open as much as Possible with regards to
Jeannette. If there's any information that the
father should have about her progress at school,
it should be made available to him and everybody
act reasonably. I think we can keep what I feel
is an important relationship going here for
Jeannette. She doesn't want to have her father
kept in the dark, I'm sure. If she were here to
speak or there was a law guardian, I'm sure that
would be expressed on her behalf. So I can't
believe that Mrs. Neidig doesn't subscribe to that
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
M 16
~
..
a
N
. 17
~
0
u 18
.;
~
.
..
.. 19
"'
.
~
Ii! 20
"'
~
..
2 21
"'
..
..
"'
~ 22
ili
u 23
2
~
24
25
23
arrangement. Do the best you can to keep the
father informed. And if we could implement the
provisions of the stipulation which provide him a
right to obtain information from the school, you
know, the Lord helps those who help themselves, so
he, it seems to me, could follow up on that, too,
but let's -- let's -- instead of erring on the
side of conservatism here, let's err on the side
of liberality, if possible, for Jeannette's sake,
okay? Does that take care of everything, Mr.
O'Reilly?
MR. O'REILLY: The only other issue in our
notice of motion was on -- was the request as far
as attorney's fees and sanctions are concerned. I
assume there will be no agreement as to those, and
I would ask for simply the right to submit by
quantum meruit application.
MS. COLLARD: We also have a countermotion
for attorney's fees.
THE COURT: Let me tell you this: If we
resolve this, as I'm hopeful we are today, I'm not
going to entertain applications on either side.
MS. COLLARD: There's one other issue.
THE COURT: I want this to end today.
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
j 16
i 17
S 18
.;
~
2
..
~ 19
Ii! 20
"'
~
~
Ii! 21
..
~ 22
~ 23
2
i5
~
24
25
24
MS. COLLARD: All right.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, go ahead.
MS. COLLARD: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to
interrupt you, Your Honor. When my client is up
here, when she has visitation with her father up
here, you want some telephone access?
MR. O'REILLY: I said that.
MS. COLLARD: And counsel agreed, but I think
we should probably schedule it so that it's not
just wide open.
THE PLAINTIFF: Whenever Jeannette is in his
custody, Whether it's in Pennsylvania or in the
Buffalo area.
MS. COLLARD: All right. Can we hit on a
little bit of a schedule like we did for the
father?
MR. O'REILLY: Can we go off the record?
rHE COURT: Sure.
(Discussion held off the record.)
THE COURT: Let me just say this again, in
line with what I said before to the parties
regarding keeping the lines of communication open,
Jeannette is going to get older here, she's not
fixed in time, in fact that's why we're working so
Official Court Reporter
M
ij
~
~
S
.;
~
2
..
..
"'
:
Ii!
~
"'
..
..
"'
~
5
~
~
'1 .'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
between Lisa Neidig and Mr. Neidig's current wife
would be kept to an absolute minimum.
THE COURT: Well, I think that's probably
something that would be preferred, is that right,
by your client as well, Mr. O'Reilly?
MR. O'REILLY: That's fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, we didn't get on the
record, I don't think, Linda, correct me if I'm
wrong, this final item with regards to when Mr.
Neidig has Jeannette up here and maybe might take
her to Toronto or something. Could you put that
on the record so we have that.
MR. O'REILLY: It's my understanding, Your
Honor, that during the three periods a year that
Jeannette is here in the Western New York area,
assuming Mr. Neidig is going to have her at his
reSidence, she will be available during the middle
day for a telephone contact from Mrs. Neidig
during the same hours as provided earlier in the
stipulation for Mr. Neidig, and that if there is
some vacation plans that will take her away from
his residence during any of those three periods,
Mrs. Neidig will be provided with notice of that
in advance.
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
~ 16
~
.
~ 17
~
S 18
.;
~
2
..
.. 19
"'
:
Ii! 20
"'
~
~
"' 21
..
..
~ 22
~
..
u 23
~
24
25
27
THE COURT: Okay, fine. Before we recess, I
wanted to ask -- I'll ask Mr. Neidig first.
YOU've been here, Mr. Neidig, throughout this
whole proceeding, which has been the entire
afternoon, it's now after five?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And you've talked to Mr.
O'Reilly, you've heard this agreement placed on
the record. Is it acceptable to you, do you find
it reasonable and fair and not unconscionable in
any way?
THE DEFENDANT: No, the agreement itself is
very fair. The way it was arrived at was
something I certainly wouldn't want to go through
again.
THE COURT: I'm just asking you __
THE DEFENDANT: But yes.
THE COURT: in this limited form.
THE DEFENDANT: I understand.
THE COURT: The quality of the process we
could deal with at some other time, but in any
event, you agree with what I had said before about
how you arrived at this agreement or at least how
you arrived at yes to this agreement?
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I 16
17
S 18
.;
~
..
.. 19
~
R 20
"'
~
"' 21
..
..
~ 22
5
~ 23
~
24
25
28
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Mrs. Neidig, I'll ask you
the same question. YOU've been here, you've heard
this put on the record. It's -- you've been
represented by Miss Collard, and she's talked to
you about this agreement. Are you in full accord
with the agreement?
THE PLAINTH'F: There are a couple details
that I'd like to bring up to make sure that's
clarified.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, now's the time.
THE PLAINTIFF: We talked about contact with
Jeannette when she's in BUffalo, but I was also
referring to any time that she is in his care for
visitation, whether it's in Pennsylvania or
BUffalo, that the access to her be extended as
well.
THE COURT: I think we talked about that, and
that's acceptable, subject to this reasonable
issue of maybe some travel or something of that
sort.
THE PLAINTIFF: I understand that.
THE COURT: I think again, if you keep these
lines of communication I keep talking about open,
Official Court Reporter
1
2
,
3
4
5
6
..,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
M 16
ij
~
I 17
0
u
.; 18
~
.
4
.. 19
~
ffi 20
~
~
"' 21
..
..
"'
~ 22
ili
u
. 23
~
~
24
25
" "
29
you'll know that Mr. Neidig -- obviously he's not
going to do this probably at the spur of the
moment, he'll be able to tell you we're going to
Toronto or we're going to be in Niagara Falls or
we're going to some other place with Jeannette,
and it may be difficult to implement this access
thing, so it's a matter of really exchanging this.
If you have to do it in writing, do it in writing,
but exchange information so that you know what's
going on and we don't have a big problem -- or, a
little problem turn into a big problem, I SUppose
is what I'm trying to say.
THE PLAINTIFF: Okay. I assume that when
Carol brought up about Mr. Neidig's wife creating
some problems, that I will have absolutely no
further contact with her, and I would also
appreciate if she does not show up during the
pickup and dropoff times as well.
THE COURT: Well--
MR. O'REILLY: It's not intended that she
will transport the child; however, if Mr. Neidig
is dropping the child off on his way home to
Western New York, I'm certain his wife will be in
the car with him so that she may go home.
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
M 16
ij
I 17
S
l2 18
2
..
.. 19
"'
:
Ii! 20
"'
~
~
Ii! 21
..
"'
~ 22
ili
u
~ 23
~
24
25
" "
MS. COLLARD: And that would not be
considered contact if his wife is in the car when
the child gets dropped off.
30
THE COURT: Again, we have to operate with a 1'.
rule of reason. We're in a world where there are
second wives, second spouses, that may even happen
to you, I don't know, in the future, and you've
got to understand that they do have some
influence, they have some say in these things, and
they sometimes intrude, they think theY're looking
out for their spouse and so forth, and that's
unfortunate, maybe, from the other side's point of
view, but you've got to realize that we're trying
to keep Jeannette's interests and welfare
uppermost.
THE PLAINTIFF: I understand that.
THE COURT: So subject to what was said, I
think there's no there's not going to be any
attempt to try to have a direct contact between
yourself and Mrs. Neidig, certainly, but she's
certainly free to be in the car and things like
that, and I'm not going to issue any Orders of
Protection or anything of that sort. I don't see
any basis for it, and I know -- I'm counting on
official Court Reporter
, ,
. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
M 16
i
~ 17
g
~ 18
..
ili 19
:
Ii! 20
"'
~
"' 21
..
..
"'
~ 22
~
~ 23
24
25
"
31
the parties to act as adults and keep their child
in mind at all times in connection with this
matter, but I don't think I got a yes from you on
those questions I put before. This is stuff we
have to put on the record.
THE PLAINTIFF: I understand. I just have to
say that a I'm a little bit leery because of
things that have happened in the past that were
not specifically set down in exact words, so there
was a lot of ambiguities.
THE COURT: Well, we have a greater degree of
specificity in this stipulation as opposed to the
stipulations in the divorce, although that was as
specific as they come, usually, but hopefully this
will promote harmony as opposed to create
disharmony. We can only do the best we can as of
this moment as we speak. I want your assent to
this agreement, that's all I'm asking.
THE PLAINTIFF: I agree.
THE COURT: Okay. I think that takes care of .
things.
MR. O'REILLY: Thank you. Your Honor.
MS. COLLARD: Thank you. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. I'd like to thank
JJJ.NUA 14.
Official Court Reporter
..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
~ 16
ij
~
~ 17
.;
u 18
.;
~
2
..
.. 19
"'
:
Ii! 20
"'
~
~
"' 21
..
..
"'
~ 22
5
~ 23
24
25
. .
"
, .
32
counsel because this has been difficult for them
as well as the parties, I appreciate it.
MS. COLLARD: We appreciate your help, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: It's not easy. Thank you very
much.
(Proceedings concluded.)
Official Court Reporter
. .
'.
as his share of day care costs for the parties child, Jeanette, for
the period of August of 1995 up to and including August 17, 1997;
and it is further
ORDERED, that the Plaintiff shall turnover to Defendant the
search and survey for the former marital residence and any joint
income tax returns in Plaintiff's possession; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant shall supply proof of life insurance
coverage to Plaintiff showing a death benefit of $100,000.00 on his
life with the Lisa "Neidig, in Trust for the parties' child,
Jeanette Neidig, named as irrevocable beneficiary;' and it is
further
ORDERED, that the Defendant shall sign an Authorization
authorizing Lisa Neidig to obtain proof that the life insurance
coverage is in effect; and it is further
i ORDERED that Defendant shall sign an authorization authorizing
I
II Lisa Neidig to obtain copies of all processed claims statements
I from Defendant's Blue Cross & Blue Shield health plan for medical
I claims that Plaintiff submits to Blue Cross & Blue Shield on behalf
I of parties' child, Jeanette Neidig, and if Blue Cross & Blue Shield
I will not supply the statements pursuant to the authorizatfon, this
I
I Court will sign an Order directing Blue Cross & Blue Shield to send
, said copies of the statements to the Plaintiff; and it is further
I
i
J ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that the Stipulation of
:1
!I settlement entered into between the parties in open Court on
:Iseptember 8, 1997 is hereby incorporated but not merged into this
I
',Order including all of the terms pertaining to telephone access and
!
: visitation.
.~ rih ~2 '991Li.~ ~_~
-....,"',.y7f{~..~
/'~ 0
-~ onv", T.--;:;;4rlrJA.I~tr ,TSc.
,
I
I
,
,I
,
I
I
i
1
i
i
i
I
I
;
I
I
;
I
I
,
i
i
i
i
I
I
--
. ,. . ."
.. - .-....
At a Matrimonial Special Tenn, Pan 22, of the
Supreme Court of the Stale of New York, held in
and for the County of Erie, at 50 Delaware Avenue
in the City of Buffalo, New York.
PRESENT: DAVID J. MAHONEY, J.S.C.
Presiding Justice
Plaintiff,
rn -
::D ::8
i'ii ...
n ;6 -,.\
(:)
c - r-
:z -.I m
-i ...,
-< :I: 0
n r-
ORDER FOR FILING . ..
rn co
;:a -.I
INDEX NO. 12596/94 ~
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF ERIE
LISA NEIDIG
.vs.
STEVEN NEIDIG
Defendant.
That the panies to the above entitled action through their attorneys, Carol D. Collard,
Esq., attorney for the Plaintiff, and Patrick C. O'Reilly, Esq., attorney for the Defendant,
having jointly submitted this order to correct and facilitate the filing of this Court's order of
December 2, 1997, it appearing that the original order executed by this Court is no longer
available for fLIing, and upon said joint submission. it is
ORDERED, that the Erie County Clerk shall accept for filing, Nunc Pro Tunc as of
December 2, 1997, simultaneously herewith, the copy of the Order executed by this Court in
the above entitled matter on December 2, 1997. which Order is annexed hereto and made a pan
hereof.
."
, .
, . fj
/ DAV~. MAHONEY, J.S.C.
~
GRANTED:
,.. :,. "
G t. A'::':
~
FXHlRlT "C"
1\..1
~' ~
.....
,-
\.:")
l:.
,"';
.~: ,
I~.
r.
.J
III C'l
N
:.: !l!
\I Q
0(
~ " t::
~ w
<ll w
.. <(
.J " Z
lo1 '"
= ~ " <( 0
z ~ ~
III 0
II: '" It >-
>- III ~
111 OJ r Z ~
~ z ~ z ;;-
0: . OJ E-
O 0 11.
-: z
~ .;
. J( ~
01 iii 0:
111 '" :J
Q m
III
.. it
..
... 0:
rtJ <(
J:
.
54~.5.1.4!ANSWEH.&CUUNTliRCLt\J,\I/LRSlvJr:-'I;j)' 27, 11)1)1) 5;JI) /'1\1
I
USA NEJDIG,
l' LAI N'J/I'I' IJU,SPONDENJ'
IN TIlE COUKT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
\'
No. 24SS ClVJL lYYY
STEVEN NEJDJG,
DEFENDANTI1'E'I'J'I'!ONER
CUS'!'ODYIVJSJ'JA]'!ON
CIVIL ACTION.. LA W
1
ANSWER ANI) COUNTERCLAJM TO
J'ETJTlON FOR CJ VJL CONTEMPT
and answers Petitioner's Petition lor CiyJ! Contempt lor Disobediell\:e of Telephone Access and Visitation Order
AND NOW, comes Respondent. Lisa Neidig, b)' and thruugh her allumeys, Smigcl,Anoerson & Sacks.
as follows,
1. AdnIltteo.
. AdnIltted.
..
3. Admilled,
4. Admitted.
5. Admllted.
6. Aomilleo,
7. Aomitted.
H. Aomilled,
I). Aomilled in pan.
The Order lllljuestion Was in IllC lorm of a nilJntivc Illal is attached to the
hct\t\:(.~CI1 cOlJll.'>d, 1ill:' ('11111'1 iJlHJ lhc purlh:s.
Petition. The eono'llons, 1I1dlJOIllJ; Ilc>JbIJIIY helweenlhe panics, was al>o all inll:~n,J flun of the COlloquy
]0, AdnIllled III 1'.1'1. The Older lnll"esl"'n Was llllhe lillm ofa Il.,r.III'e Ihal is allaehed to the
hctv'(.'l:'1l ~;()Ul1sd. lhl: (\lIm uud tilL' pMIIL'S.
Pelillon. 'I he cunJllltlns, IIldlJdlJlg ik\lhillll' hcl\\eenthe l'.rI,es, lias .'>11 .nllllegla1lliln oftlte colloquy
11. No response is required to this paragraph. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent
would take exception 10 Petitioner's characterization of what is important to him based upon his performanec,
12. Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the trulh of this
averment and, therefore, it is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Melinda
Eash reprimanded Plaintiff because of his impulsive and over-reactive behavior.
13. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Respondent violates the terms of the Stipulation in any
respect whatsoever, To the contrary, Petitioner has been in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the
Stipulation.
14. Denied. It is specifically denied that Respondent in any way whatsoever violates the terms of the
Stipulation.
IS. Denied, It is specifically denied that Respondent in any way attempts to thwart the rights of
Petitioner. To the contrary, it is averred that Petitioner's actions and hostility exhibited toward Respondent create
his own problems,
16. Denied, It is specifically denied that Respondent in any way failed to follow any lawful Court
Order and any expenses incurred by Petitioner are absolutely unnecessary inasmuch as he has never attempted to
communicate with Respondent about any of the problems alleged ill the within Petition. To the contrary, if such
communication had been attempted with Respondent no travel or Court fees would have been ineurred, as they
would have been unnecessary.
WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Court dismiss Petitioner's Petition for
Civil Contempt and assess costs and expenses against Petitioner,
COUNTERCLAIM
AND NOW, comes Respondent. by and through her attorneys, Smigel. Anderson & Sacks, and hereby
files the following Counterclaim:
- 2-
17. Respondent repeats and rea lieges the avennents of paragraphs I through 16 above, which are
incorporated by referencc herein.
18. Petitioner, Steven Neidig, is hostile, crude, arrogant and insulting to Respondent, Lisa Neidig,
during the times that he conlacts her by tclephone. Although Respondent attempts to communicate appropriately
with Petitioner, he hangs up the phone and curses at her, which behavior is demeaning and not in the best interests
of the parties' minor child.
19. During the time that the parties' minor child visits with Petitioner, Respondent is entitled to
telephone access to the child,
20. During the time that the parties' minor child visits with Petitioner, Respondent's telephone access
to the child is blatantly denied by Petitioner.
21. The parties' minor child has serious health issues that require communication with and
information provided to Respondent during the time that the minor child visits with Petitioner. By refusing to
allow the required telephone contact, the child's health and safety are jeopardized by Petitioner.
22. Petitioner does not take full advantage of visitation times with the child that are available to him
and consistently leaves the visitation early.
23. Petitioner does not exercise his right to spend additional time with the parties' minor child, that
he could certainly do and which would avoid the problems of which he complains rather than asking the Court to
assess inappropriate sanelions against Respondent.
24. Petitioner's anger and hostility against Respondent create an atmosphere of tension which is not
conducive to the well-being of the minor child,
25. Respondent has attempted on many occasions to communicate appropriately with Petitioner
concerning the welfare and benefit of the parties' minor child. Petitioner has refused and rejected such overtures.
Petitioner has, in fact, responded by using profanities against Respondent, which behavior is not conducive to
promoting the welfare of the parties' minor child.
WHEREFORF:, Respondent, Lisa Neidig, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
.3-
,~
LISA NEIDIG,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs.
: NO. 99-2488 CIVIL TERM
STEVEN NEIDIG,
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
elIDER OF 0XlRT
AND 1I:iI, this /0 .
consideration of the attached
and directed as follows:
day of <1<<-. , 1999, upon
CUstody Concifiation Report, it is ordered
1. The CUstody Order entered by the Supreme Court of Erie County, New
York on December 2, 1997, based on the parties' StipUlation, shall continue
in effect.
2. The Father's extended period of custody with the Child during the
sumner in 1999 shall begin on June 26 at 2:00 p.m. and end on July 5 if the
Mother is providing the return transportation. The Father may have custody
of the Child through July 6 if the parties agree and arrange for the
peternal grandparents to provide the transportation back to the Mother's
residence. The scheduled period of extended custody under this provision
reflects the parties' agreement to adjust the previously scheduled dates
(July 2 through July 11) to accommodate the Child's medical evaluation
scheduled for July 9, 1999.
3. The Father shall provide to the Mother a long distance calling
card in the Child's name to be used only by the Child to contact the Father
on the occasions when the Child is not available to receive the Father's
regularly scheduled weekly telephone calls. :l'he Mother shall ensure that
the Child contacts the Father on the dates scheduled for telephone contact
when the Child has not been available at the regularly scheduled times or
has missed the Father's call.
4. During the Father's period of extendedsurrmer custody in 1999, the
Mother shall be entitled to contact the Child by telephone at 9:00 p.m. on
June 28, June 31, and July 4. If the Child cannot be available at the
scheduled times to receive the Mother's call, the Father shall ensure that
the Child contacts the Mother on the same dates. In addition, the Father
shall contact the Mother by telephone to advise of any medical problems or
symptoms the Child is experiencing of which the Mother should be aware.
5. The parties agree to consider obtaining the services of an
independent mediator to assist them in resolving custody issues or disputes
as they arise.
6. 'Itlis order is entered pursuant ;;0 an agreement of the parties at a
CUstody Conciliation Conference. The parties may modify the provisions of
this Order by lmltual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms
LISA NEIDIG,
Plaintiff
IN THE CCURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-2488 CIVIL TERM
vs.
STEVEN NEIDIG,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
ClJSTCDY COOCILIATIOO SlHlARY REPCRr
IN AOCDUlANCE wrm cumERI.AND CXXM.Y RIlLE OF CIVIL ~
1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject
of this litigation is as follows:
~
DI\TE OF BlRl'H
CIlRRENTLY IN CUSTOOY OF
Jeanette Neidig
October 26, 1990
Mother
2. A COnciliation Conference was held on June 1, 1999, with the
following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Lisa Neidig, with her
counsel, LeRoy Smigel, Esquire and the Father, Steven Neidig, with his
counsel, G. Patrick O'Connor, Esquire.
3. 'll1e parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached.
J~
Date
:1 /97'<7
f
~~.,~
Dawn S. Sunday, Esqulre
Custody Conciliator