Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RABINOWITZ v. STATE OF NEW YORK

August 12, 2004.

SCOTT RABINOWITZ, Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK STATE FAMILY COURT; NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION 2nd DEPARTMENT; THE NEW YORK STATE COURT OF APPEALS; JUDGE KERRY TRAINOR; FAMILY COURT; JOY JORGENSON, LAW GUARDIAN; JOSEPH MULE, LINDA COOK'S LAWYER; FLOYD SARISOHN, MY FORMER LAWYER; and LINDA COOK, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: ARTHUR SPATT, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

On June 18, 2004, Scott Rabinowitz ("Rabinowitz" or the "plaintiff"), who is proceeding pro se, commenced this action, accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis, alleging issues relating to the custody of his children. On July 21, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

  I. BACKGROUND

  In his voluminous complaint, consisting of 46 pages and exhibits, Rabinowitz alleges a litany of charges against the defendants including, inter alia, The State of New York, several New York State Courts, a judge, a law guardian, and several lawyers. He claims that jurisdiction of the court is invoked pursuant to, among others, several Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rules 105, 402, 403; 28 U.S.C. § 455, which relates to disqualification of federal judges; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities; and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

  The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is that the Family Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, should not have issued an unfavorably opinion granting sole custody of his children to Linda Cook, the mother of his children.

  According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Ms. Cook began dating and cohabiting between the years of 1994 and 1997. While unmarried, they subsequently had three children, Emily born on February 13, 1999, Zachary born on October 12, 2000, and Joshua, born on October 1, 2001.

  During this time, they lived in various places, including California, Ohio, Connecticut, and New York.

  Apparently, the relationship between plaintiff and Cook began to have problems associated with financial difficulties, family differences, drug use, and religion. The parties sought to resolve issues relating to the custody of the children in the Family Court, Suffolk County. A hearing was held before Family Court Judge Kerry R. Trainor with regard to the custody of the children. The Plaintiff was represented by counsel for most of the trial. Judge Trainor issued a decision on February 2, 2002, which granted sole legal custody of plaintiff's children to the mother, Linda Cook, and limited visitation rights to the plaintiff. The Appellate Division of the Second Judicial Department affirmed the decision on March 15, 2004. The New York State Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on May 13, 2004.

  Rabinowitz seeks, among other things, (1) full custody of his children; (2) "[a] permanent order for Linda Cook [mother of his children] to keep me [him] informed as to any location and address of where she lives now and at anytime". Compl. at 51; and (3) reversal of Judge Trainor's decision.

  II. DISCUSSION

  It is well-settled that the Court must read a pro se plaintiff's complaint liberally. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9, 101 S.Ct. 173 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594 (1972). Further, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court assumes the truth of the allegations in the complaint. See H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 249-50, 109 S.Ct. 2893 (1989); Koppel v. 4987 Corp., 167 F.3d 125, 127 (2d Cir. 1999).

  A. In Forma Pauperis Application

  Upon review of the plaintiff's declaration in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court concludes that the plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.