Opinion
Index No. 156113/2022
07-10-2023
Sune Gaulsh, Petitioner, v. New York County Family Court, Hon. J.F.C. Carol Goldstein (Fam. Ct. Judge), Hon. Karen Lupuloff (Fam. Ct. Supervising Judge), Hon. Anne-Marie Jolly (Fam. Ct. Admin. Judge), Respondents, Michelle Mascioli, Interested Respondent.
Petitioner Sune Gaulsh, Pro Se For Respondents Amy Luo, Assistant Attorney General
Unpublished Opinion
Petitioner
Sune Gaulsh, Pro Se
For Respondents
Amy Luo, Assistant Attorney General
LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Sune Gaulsh filed his petition in this court July 22, 2022, seeking to transfer the undecided motions in an underlying New York County Family Court proceeding to this court and then to transfer venue to the Supreme Court in another county or, alternatively, to compel respondents to issue appealable decisions on the outstanding motions in the Family Court proceeding. Gaulsh also asks this court to release him from the contempt orders in the Family Court proceeding, seal the record of this proceeding, and award him his costs in bringing this petition. The day before oral argument was scheduled, Gaulsh, who had commenced this proceeding pro se, sought an adjournment of the oral argument to allow his newly retained attorney to familiarize herself with his claims. He subsequently waived oral argument of the petition.
Petitioner here, Sune Gaulsh, was the petitioner in a New York County Family Court proceeding against Michelle Mascioli, relating at least in part to the custody of their minor child. On July 9, 2018, the Family Court awarded Gaulsh sole custody of the child and Mascioli visitation rights. V. Pet. Ex. G (Aff. of Sune Gaulsh) Ex. 1 (Final Order on Petition for Custody and Visitation), NYSCEF Doc. No. 9 at 125-26 of 437. On November 10, 2020, Family Court Judge Sweeting ordered extended overnight parenting time for Mascoili starting November 14, 2020. Gaulsh Aff. Ex. 5 (Amended Temporary Order), NYSCEF Doc. No. 9 at 136-37. On November 13, 2020 Gaulsh removed the child to Denmark without the court's permission. On November 17, 2020, Judge Sweeting issued a warrant for Gaulsh's arrest and ordered Gaulsh to return the child to the United States. Gaulsh Aff. Ex. 9 (Warrant of Arrest), NYSCEF Doc. No. 9 at 149. On December 4, 2020, Judge Sweeting found Gaulsh in civil and criminal contempt and sentenced him to six months incarceration for each. Gaulsh Aff. Ex. 11 (Final Order After Trial), NYSCEF Doc. No. 9 at 155-60. A federal criminal complaint, Interpol's involvement, and Gaulsh's arrest in Serbia followed. Gaulsh Aff., NYSCEF Doc. No. 9, ¶¶ 275-76. Gaulsh is not currently in custody and resides in Copenhagen, Denmark. The child was released into Mascoili's custody.
Subsequently, Gaulsh appealed and moved to vacate or stay enforcement of the Family Court's custody and visitation orders. Respondent Judge Lupuloff of the Family Court initially rejected Gaulsh's motions to vacate and stay the orders. V. Pet. Exs. A and B, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 3-4, prompting this proceeding in July 2022.
On August 11, 2022, Judge Lupuloff vacated her orders rejecting the motions at issue and assigned them to Family Court Judge Kingo, who decided them November 9, 2022. Thus, to the extent that the petition seeks to transfer those motions to this court or to another county or to compel a decision on them, that relief is moot and therefore denied.
II. HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF
To the extent that the petition seeks a writ of habeas corpus to release Gaulsh from the contempt orders dated November 17, 2020, and December 4, 2020, he sought that relief from the Appellate Division, which denied the relief. Sune G. v. Michelle M., NY Slip Op. 64819(U) (1st Dep't Apr. 11, 2023). Gaulsh asks this court to order respondent Family Court Judges to grant the relief to which the Appellate Division has determined he is not entitled. This court will not contradict the Appellate Division and therefore denies him that relief as well.
Moreover, because Gaulsh violated Family Court orders and is a fugitive from justice, the fugitive disentitlement doctrine dictates that the court deny relief to the fugitive so long as there is a nexus between his fugitive status and the relief sought, as where his absence frustrates enforcement of the court's orders. Gem Holdco, LLC v. Changing World Techs., L.P., 164 A.D.3d 1132, 1132 (1st Dep't 2018); Wechsler v. Wechsler, 45 A.D.3d 470, 472 (1st Dep't 2007). Gaulsh seeks relief from the contempt orders and the warrant for his arrest after he removed his child from the United States in violation of the Family Court orders, which establishes a nexus between his fugitive status and both this proceeding and the Family Court proceeding. He continues to make himself unavailable to obey the Family Court orders in the event his request for relief is unsuccessful. Christie S. v. Marqueo S., 106 A.D.3d 592, 592 (1st Dep't 2013). Therefore the court also denies the petition to the extent that petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus. Gaulsh has placed himself beyond this court's jurisdiction and may not invoke this court to obtain relief. Melissa S. v. Allen S., 54 Misc.3d 684, 690 (Fam. Ct. Queens Co. 2016).
III. SEALING
To the extent that Gaulsh requests the record in this proceeding to be sealed, the court may seal documents only upon a finding of good cause. 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 216.1(a); Matter of James Q., 32 N.Y.3d 671, 680 (2019); Wilder v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., 175 A.D.3d 406, 410 (1st Dep't 2019); Maxim Inc. v. Feifer, 145 A.D.3d 516, 517 (1st Dep't 2016); Matter of East 51st St. Crane Collapse Litig., 106 A.D.3d 473, 474 (1st Dep't 2013). The party seeking to seal any part of court records bears the burden to demonstrate good cause. Maxim Inc. v. Feifer, 145 A.D.3d at 517; Davis v. Nyack Hosp., 130 A.D.3d 455, 456 (1st Dep't 2015); Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345, 349 (1st Dep't 2010). Restrictions on access to court records must be narrowly tailored, 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 216.1(a); Maxim Inc. v. Feifer, 145 A.D.3d at 518; Applehead Pictures LLC v. Perelman, 80 A.D.3d 181, 191 (1st Dep't 2013); Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 A.D.3d at 349-50, because New York law broadly presumes that the public is entitled to access court records. Matter of James Q., 32 N.Y.3d at 680; Wilder v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., 175 A.D.3d at 410; Maxim Inc. v. Feifer, 145 A.D.3d at 517; Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 A.D.3d at 348. Therefore the court will limit the public nature of judicial proceedings only when compelling circumstances require such a limitation. Wilder v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., 175 A.D.3d at 410; Maxim Inc. v. Feifer, 145 A.D.3d at 517; Davis v. Nyack Hosp., 130 A.D.3d at 456; Matter of East 51st St. Crane Collapse Litig., 106 A.D.3d at 474. Since Gaulsh does not show such circumstances, the court denies his request to seal any records in this proceeding.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, for the reasons explained above, the court denies the petition in its entirety, dismisses this proceeding, and also denies Gaulsh's request for an award of his costs in bringing this proceeding.