NEWS
LET JUSTICE PREVAIL
May 8, 2024
In Peter's letter to the editor, he praises Support Magistrate Sondra Mendelson-Toscano for her effective handling of a family court case involving a pro se father in Nassau Court. Peter highlights Mendelson-Toscano's ability to manage the courtroom with compassion and leadership, emphasizing that her approach helped maintain the dignity of all parties involved and resulted in justice prevailing.
​
Link to Letter: Support Magistrate Provides a 'Breath of Fresh Air' for Family Court
Published: May 8, 2024 in the New York Law Journal
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"]
April 11, 2024
In addition to lecturing and writing articles about the law, Peter has also lent his time to aspiring law students, as he did recently for a prominent Civil Rights attorney and Touro Law School Professor Fred Brewington. As Professor Brewington expressed in response to Peter's involvement in the education of his Trial Advocacy students:
"Please accept my warm gratitude for your participation in the Mock Trial Exercises for my Trial Practice students. You brought a wealth of experience and wisdom to your interaction with the students through your Judge role. The students are so grateful for your input and much the better for it. You know quite well the daunting task of standing before a magistrate or judge pleading a case on behalf of your client. Fortunately, the students were able to prosper in this opportunity by benefitting from the fruits of the esteemed litigator that you are. I am certain we share the hope that when they are faced with the aforementioned task they will recall a word of advice, a strategy or a pearl of wisdom that you imparted during the exercise. It is no small sacrifice to give of your time and talents so freely and I, the students, and the staff and faculty of Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg's Law Center appreciate your giving back to the future attorneys in the most meaningful way."
​
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.
​
Approximately seven months after Peter delivered his compelling oral argument, the Appellate Division ruled in favor of Peter's client by its decision dated August 7, 2024.​
​
Link to Decision: Decision and Order 8-7-24
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.
PUBLISHED ARTICLES
​​
​​
​​
​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
October 24, 2023
The reason why the Massoni decision is important to the matrimonial community is because the standard of review on the valuation of a spouse's business or business interests was both clarified and fortified by the Massoni case. Indeed, the Massoni case has strongly influences the Appellate Court's subsequent valuation decisions, like Rigas v. Rigas, where four Appelate judges joined an opinion that quoted and primarily relied on the decision rendered in Massoni in deciding the issues being dedated in Rigas.
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.
​
​