NationalPLC.Org

 

kidsnav.gif (4714 bytes)

Contact Us

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1998

John Murtari, Petitioner,
vs.
Adrianne Phillipson Murtari, Respondent,


PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK


Mr. John Murtari respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, for the State of New York.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the Appellate Division is reported as Murtari v. Murtari, 673 NYS 2d 278 (1998 NY Slip Op 03968). The Court of Appeals decision is yet to be reported. Both are included in the Appendix.

JURISDICTION

The decision from the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, State of New York, was entered on April 29, 1998. An order, from same, denying reargument was issued on July 8, 1998. The New York State Court of Appeals denied review of the decision on August 31, 1998. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. (1257).


CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED

The Domestic Relations Law (DLR) & CPLR for the State of New York prohibit the appointment of a jury in divorce proceedings on the issues of custody or equitable distribution. The CPLR also does not provide for the right to Counsel in a proceeding which will determine child custody in State Supreme Court.

The Petitioner prays the Court will review these restrictions, which also appear to be common among many states, in the light of the following sections of the U.S. Constitution:

Seventh Amendment - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . .

Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people …

While Petitioner acknowledges the framers of the Constitution did not intentionally include "matrimonial" issues within these amendments, and that divorces were not then considered matters within the "common" law, but rather church law - he asks the Court to consider the present day frequency and ease of Divorce proceedings (and their devastating effect on families). Might this "evolution" have caused the "founding fathers" some concern. Especially when considered with those words from our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Court has always held to the tradition that "Liberty" and "Life" rights deserve our greatest protections. What of "Happiness?" And what greater and purer "Happiness" can there be in life than the relation between parent and child?

Who among us, when faced with a Court proceeding in which we felt a Judge was about to unjustly limit contact with our children - would not want the safety valve of a jury? Who among us would not want a presumption we be allowed equal contact with our children? Is not the right to the company of one's children/parents, a right preserved to the people?