Judge: Decision Reported Below: 1st Dept: 138 AD3d 403 (NY)
The combination of the court's oral colloquy with defendant and the detailed written waiver that he signed after consultation with counsel satisfied the requirements of a valid waiver. This waiver forecloses review of defendant's excessive sentence claim (see People v Jackson, 138 A.D.3d 403 [2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1152 [2016]).
The combination of the court's oral colloquy with defendant and the detailed written waiver that he signed after consultation with counsel satisfied the requirements of a valid waiver. This waiver forecloses review of defendant's excessive sentence claim (seePeople v Jackson , 138 AD3d 403 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1152 [2016] ). Notwithstanding the waiver, we perceive no basis for reducing defendant's sentence.
The combination of the court's oral colloquy with defendant and the detailed written waiver that he signed after consultation with counsel satisfied the requirements of a valid waiver. This waiver forecloses review of defendant's excessive sentence claim (see People v Jackson, 138 A.D.3d 403 [2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1152 [2016]). Notwithstanding the waiver, we perceive no basis for reducing defendant's sentence.
Petitioner's testimony creates the strong impression that visitation according to his proposed schedule would never come to pass (cf. Matter of David B. v. Katherine G., 138 A.D.3d 403, 407, 30 N.Y.S.3d 5 [1st Dept. 2016] ["There is every reason to believe (the mother) will comply with liberal visits for the father"] ). Petitioner, moreover, did not address the child's visitation with his siblings, and did not rebut respondent's testimony about the positive nature of the child's relationship with his siblings.
However, the cases are distinguishable. For example, Matter of David B. v Katherine G. (138 A.D.3d 403 [1st Dept 2016]) involved only a 45-mile move to Katonah, additional summer and vacation time was to be provided to the father, and the mother could not find any affordable housing in New York City after she was evicted from her residence. In addition, the attorney for the child and the forensic evaluator supported the move.
In addition, the defendant's failure to acknowledge paternity of Ms. M's child, or at least submit to a DNA test, is troubling. His explanation for the emails he wrote to Ms. M wherein he refers to the child she bore as "our son," strains credibility. That the defendant has had numerous girlfriends since the parties' 2014 divorce the last few years raises concerns for the court as well. His short-term romantic relationships with at least four different women in a short period of time, all of whom the child was introduced to, injects confusion and instability into the child's life (David B v Katherine G, 138 AD3d 403 [1st Dept 2016]). The fact that the defendant failed to list the significant debt of $50,000 to Ms. M on his sworn net worth statement is troubling as well. This is a direct misrepresentation to the court of his financial position. The court notes, too, that despite the intervention of counsel for Ms. M in 2014, and the defendant's representation to her counsel that he would begin to repay the loan she made to him, he has made no payments to date.
In addition, the defendant's failure to acknowledge paternity of Ms. M's child, or at least submit to a DNA test, is troubling. His explanation for the emails he wrote to Ms. M wherein he refers to the child she bore as "our son," strains credibility. That the defendant has had numerous girlfriends since the parties' 2014 divorce the last few years raises concerns for the court as well. His short-term romantic relationships with at least four different women in a short period of time, all of whom the child was introduced to, injects confusion and instability into the child's life (David B v. Katherine G, 138 AD3d 403 [1st Dept 2016] ). The fact that the defendant failed to list the significant debt of $50,000 to Ms. M on his sworn net worth statement is troubling as well. This is a direct misrepresentation to the court of his financial position. The court notes, too, that despite the intervention of counsel for Ms. M in 2014, and the defendant's representation to her counsel that he would begin to repay the loan she made to him, he has made no payments to date.