NEWS
LET JUSTICE PREVAIL
April 16, 2024
Peter's handiwork in the Brim v. Combs case was recently praised in an article published by the New York Law Journal on April 16, 2024, entitled Child Support Caps and Calculations: Is There Still a Need for 'Needs'?, which read in pertinent part:
Another noteworthy case is Brim v. Combs, 25AD3d 691 (2nd Dept. 2006) Iv deied 6 NY3d 713 (2006), where an aaward of $15,000/month was ulitmately granted to the mother of Sean Combs' child given that the rapper/entrepreneur refused to provide financial information and defaulted. [The court used the "needs" of the child as set forth in the mother's financial disclosure affidavit to reduce the amount of child support awarded by the lower court to be paid by Combs on income over the then initial "cap" of $80,000. "In high income cases, the appropriate determination under Family Court Act Section 413(1)(f) for an award of child support on parental income in excess of $80,000 should be based on the child's actual needs and that amount that is required for the childto live an appropriate lifestyle, rather than the wealth of one or both parties"]
January 30, 2024
In the Mazura case
Peter seeks to convince four Justices of the Appellate Division that three distinct businesses should all be held jointly liable for our client's injuries. The most intriguing part of Peter's argument is found in his effort to hold the general Contractor liable for its subcontractor's negligence under a novel legal theory that will establish new law in New York if adopted by the Appellate Division, which has yet to rule.
January 11, 2024
Peter's article "Why AFCs Should Not Be Appointed To Represent Non-Communicative Toddlers in Custody Disputes" was thereafter favorably reviewed in an article entitled "Custody Litigation: Growing Pains as Children's Rights Get Bolder" on January 10, 2024, in the New York Law Journal, which stated in pertinent part:
The AFC who substitutes judgment becomes an advocate for his or her own preferences which are often the result of biased thinking. But the AFC, unlike the forensic expert, the parent, the witness, or the GAL, does not have to justify their judgment and is not subject to cross-examination.
Our adversary system breaks down to the point where attorneys for the parties are unable to question those who influence the decisions, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations which influence the result.
It is for these reasons that Peter Galasso, myself, and others have questioned the appointment of an AFC for a small child and instead, have recommended using Guardians ad Litem who can be cross-examined. And even in cases involving older children, it may be preferable to appoint a Guardian ad Litem who is NOT required to advocate the child's wishes but, instead, inquire regarding the child's best interests and be required to report and defend any conclusions.
In two significant divorce cases that Peter recently litigated, he attained outcomes that tangibly reflect on how his creative due diligence benefited his now extremely happy clients.
In a second hotly contested divorce action in which Peter was engaged prior to trial by the client's then attorney for the sole purpose of utilizing Peter's expertise in challenging the values attributed to the client’s interest in six distinctive businesses owned by a controlling business entity, which were presented through the testimony of the two business valuators hired by his client’s spouse. Over the course of the approximate five trial days that Peter cross-examined the wife’s experts, in addition to choreographing the presentation of his own business valuator's expert opinion offered in rebuttal, Peter meticulously brought out why the plaintiff’s expert's arithmetic, his valuation methodologies, and the theoretical underpinnings of those methodologies, should be rejected. In the decision rendered at the conclusion of the parties' trial, the trial judge rejected the expert opinions of plaintiff's two experts in all respects, opined the value of the client’s interest in the controlling business entity at over $10 million, and adopted the approximate $1.3 million value proffered by Peter’s forensic accountant.
- Strategic Business Valuation Information Page -
Please keep in mind that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
PUBLISHED ARTICLES