People v. H. B. (Ontario Tn. Ct., Wayne Co., 10/18)

Mr. Corletta demonstrated how having knowledge of 2 different areas of law benefitted his client in People v. H. B. (Ontario Tn. Ct., Wayne Co., 10/18)

          In that case, Mr. Corletta’s client, involved in a matrimonial, received an Order of Protection after a minor argument with their spouse. No physical contact occurred, just a verbal argument. The marital residence belonged to Mr. Corletta’s client since well prior to the marriage. The spouse, well schooled in Court procedures, contacted police. As usual, police believed the spouse, removed Mr. Corletta’s client from the residence, and had a Stay Away Order of Protection placed against the client by a rural Town Justice who was an ex-State Trooper.

          In the matrimonial, the spouse used the Order of Protection as a sword to live in the client's home without paying any associated expenses, essentially living there for free. Progress on the matrimonial was stalled until the spouse was forced to relinquish the Order of Protection, and the client was mired in unnecessary expense.

          Only after extensive motion practice in the matrimonial, and Mr. Corletta showing to the matrimonial judge, who was extremely well published, and had rendered over 100 decisions in matrimonial matters, that he could do nothing about the criminal court Order of Protection until such time as the spouse relented in releasing it, did the spouse finally relent. The spouse relented because Mr. Corletta applied pressure in the matrimonial to get the matrimonial Court to tell the spouse they would be ordered to vacate the marital residence (and thus pay for their own place) unless there was movement in this regard.

          Magically, the spouse began to cooperate. As a result, the Order of Protection was vacated, Mr. Corletta’s client received an ACD, and the client was then able to reenter the marital residence, tend to it, and get it ready for sale, without fear of arrest.

          Mr. Corletta demonstrated to not one, but two Judges how an Order of Protection can be improperly and unfairly used to obtain a strategic advantage, a persistent problem in Order of Protection cases.