U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L SF O R T H E S E C O N D C I R C U I T

C H A R L E S E . C O L L I N S , I I I ,

P l a i n t i f f - A p p e l l a n t ,

- a g a i n s t -

N I C H O L A S D . M O R S I L L O , J O H N A U S T I N ,L E O C A S E Y, A R L E N E M . C A R E L L A ,S A R A T O G A C O U N T Y S U P P O R T C O L L E C T I O N

U N I T, U N I F I E D C O U RT S Y S T E M O F N E W Y O R K ,

D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l l e e s .

O N A P P E A L F R O M T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R TF O R T H E N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F N E W Y O R K

B R I E F F O R N I C H O L A S D . M O R S I L L O A N DA R L E N E M . C A R E L L A , A P P E L L E E S

N I C H O L A S D . M O R S I L L O , E S Q . , P r o S eA L S O A T T O R N E Y F O R A R L E N E M , C A R E L L AO f fi c e a n d P . O . A d d r e s s7 2 3 S t a t e S t r e e tS c h e n e c t a d y, N e w Yo r k 1 2 3 0 7Te l e p h o n e : ( 5 1 8 ) 3 7 4 - 5 5 2 2

C H A R L E S E . C O L L I N S , I I I , A p p e l l a n tP r o s e

1 0 8 B r u n s w i c k R o a dT r o y, N e w Yo r k 1 2 1 8 0

D E N N I S C . V A C C O

A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f t h eS t a t e o f N e w Y o r k

A t t o r n e y f o r S t a t e A p p e l l e e sT h e C a p i t o lA l b a n y, N e w Yo r k 1 2 2 2 4

i

A R G U M E N T :

P L A I N T I F F ' S C L A I M S A G A I N S T T H E D E F E N D A N T S ,N I C H O L A S D . M O R S I L L O A N D A R L E N E M . C A R E L L A ,A N D O T H E R D E F E N D A N T S W E R E P R O P E R L Y D I S M I S S E DB Y T H E C O U R T B E L O W U N D E R T H E R Q O K E R - F E L D M A N

D O C T R I N E A N D T H E A B S T E N T I O N D O C T R I N E .

C o n c l u s i o n

P a g e

P r e l i m i n a r y S t a t e m e n t

I s s u e P r e s e n t e d

S t a t e m e n t o f T h e C a s e .

T h e A c t i o n B e l o w

TA B L E O F A U T H O R I T I E S

P a g e

Carella v Collins, 614 NYS2d 329 (3d Dept),app dismissed and Iv denied, 84 NY2d 850( 1 9 9 4 )

C e c o s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , I n c . v J o r l i n g ,8 9 5 F 2 d 6 6 ( 2 d C i r 1 9 9 0 )

C o l l i n s V A u s t i n , N o . 9 0 - C V- 1 3 8 ( N D N YJ u n e 1 3 , 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f d . N o . 9 1 - 7 7 0 0( 2 d C i r , F e b r u a r y 2 7 , 1 9 9 2 )

C o l l i n s V C a r e l l a , 9 0 - C V- l l l l ( N D N YO c t o b e r 2 5 , 1 9 9 0 )

C o l l i n s V C a r e l l a , 9 0 - C V - 1 3 5 2

C o l l i n s V U n i fi e d C o u r t S y s t e m o f N e w Yo r k ,N o . 9 1 - C V- 3 4 9 ( N D N Y, J u n e 1 4 , 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f d .N o . 9 1 - 7 7 0 3 ( 2 d C i r , F e b r u a r y 2 7 , 1 9 9 2 ) . . .

D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a C o u r t o f A p p e a l s vFeldman, 460 US 462 (1983)

King V Abrams, No. 92-CV-1004 (NDNYFebruary 20, 1993), affd. No. 93-6065( 2 d C i r , O c t o b e r 2 2 , 1 9 9 3 )

King V James, No. 91-CV-952 (NDNY,N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f d . N o . 9 1 - 9 3 1 7(2d Ci r May 8 , 1992)

Mason V Departmental Disciplinary Comm.8 9 4 F 2 d 5 1 2 { 2 d C i r ) , c e r t d e n i e d ,4 9 7 U S 1 0 2 5 ( 1 9 9 0 )

Moore V Sims, 442 US 415 (1979)

Rooker v Fidelity Trust Co., 263 US 413 (1923)....

Te x a c o I n c . v P e n n z o i l C o . , 7 8 4 F 2 d 11 3 3( 2 d C i r 1 9 8 6 ) , r e v ' d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s ,

4 8 1 U S 1 ( 1 9 8 7 )

TA B L E O F A U T H O R I T I E S ( c o n t ' d )

U n i t e d S t a t e s e x r e l . G r i f fi n v M a r t i n ,4 0 9 F 2 d 1 3 0 0 ( 2 d C i r 1 9 6 9 )

Younger v Harris, 401 US 37 (1971)

U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n

S i x t h A m e n d m e n t

F e d e r a l S t a t u t e

4 2 u s e§ 1 9 8 3

N e w Y o r k S t a t u t e s

F a m i l y C o u r t A c t§ 4 3 3 • •■ • • • • • •§ 4 3 5§ 4 3 5 ( a )§ 4 5 4

1

U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L SF O R T H E S E C O N D C I R C U I T

C H A R L E S E . C O L L I N S , I I I ,

P l a i n t i f f - A p p e l l a n t ,

- a g a i n s t -

NICHOLAS D. MORSILLO, JOHN AUSTIN,L E O C A S E Y, A R L E N E M . C A R E L L A ,SARATOGA COUNTY SUPPORT COLLECTIONUNIT, UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM OF NEW YORK,

D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l l e e s .

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES D ISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHER DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

B R I E F F O R N I C H O L A S D . M O R S I L L O A N DA R L E N E M . C A R E L L A , A P P E L L E E S

P r e l i m i n a r y S t a t e m e n t

In an action brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 in which plaintiff

alleged conspiracy an other wrongful conduct by the Unified Court System

of New York, a New York Family Court Judge, plaintiff 's ex-wife, his ex-

wife's attorney and a county support collection unit, this is an appealo f a n O r d e r i s s u e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n

District of New York (McAvoy, J.) dismissing the complaint against all

d e f e n d a n t s . T h i s b r i e f i s s u b m i t t e d o n b e h a l f o f N i c h o l a s D . M o r s i l l o

a n d A r l e n e M . C a r e l l a , A p p e l l e e s .

I s s u e P r e s e n t e d

Whether the court below properly dismissed plaintiff's

numerous allegations of conspiracy and other charges against the

F a m i l y C o u r t a n d o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s u n d e r t h e R o o k e r - f p I

d o c t r i n e a n d t h e a b s t e n t i o n d o c t r i n e

S t a t e m e n t o f t h e C a s e

Plaintiff Charles Collins married Arlene Carella on Jxme 28,1975 (289) The couple had three children and were subsequently

separated. They entered into a separation agreement in 1980,amended in 1981, which contained provisions for maintenance and

child support payments by Collins; they were divorced in July1981 (168-174) . From that divorce have ensued numerous and

lengthy court proceedings involving plaintiff, his ex-wife, and ahost of other persons, addressing matters of child custody, child

s u p p o r t , a n d r e l a t e d i s s u e s .

This case is the latest of several federal act ions commenced

by plaintiff Collins in response to a support arrears proceedinginitiated by Carella in the New York State Family Court of

Saratoga County. The Family Court petition alleged that Collinshad moved to Florida on September 30, 1989, and had failed

thereafter to make support payments to Carella as required by

prior state court order; accumulated arrears in payment were thenestimated at seven thousand dollars (39-40). Warren County

* Numbers in parentheses refer to pages in the "Jtopendix ofA p p e l l a n t C h a r l e s E . C o l l i n s , I I I " i n t h i s m a t t e r.

Family Court Judge John Austin was assigned to the SaratogaFamily Court to hear and decide this matter.

Following extensive litigation before the Family Court,Collins attempted to remove the proceeding to the United StatesDistrict court for the Northern District of New York in October1990 (33). By order of that court (Munson, J.) dated October 25,1990, removal was denied, roll ins v Carelja, 90-CV-llll (NDNYOctober 25, 1990).

on December 17, 1990, Collins filed a complaint in theFederal District Court for the Northern District of New Yorkagainst, alia. Carella and her attorney, Nicholas Morsillo,alleging conspiracy and other improper acts relating to theFamily Court proceeding and earlier state court proceedings.That complaint was dismissed by Judge McAvoy in February 1991.ri-ilHns V Carella. 90-CV-1352 (96-97) .

on February 1, 1991, Collins filed a complaint with theunited States Federal District Court for the Northern District ofNew York, naming as defendants, inter lia. Judge Austin, LeCasey, a supervisor of the Saratoga County Collection Unit, andthe Family Court of the Unified Court System of New York. Thatconplaint again alleged conspiracy and other in?)roper actsrelating to the Family Court proceeding and earlier state courtproceedings, including a conspiracy among Judge Austin, Carella,Morsillo, and several other judges to deny Collins hisconstitutional rights, extort money from Collins' family, andcover up a history of illegal actions. Judge McAvoy's dismissal

4

Of the conplaint was affirmed by this Court. Sge, £alliai_vSastia, No. 90-CV-138 (NDNY June 13, 1991), MM. No. 91-7700 (2d

February 27, 1992) (96-102, 103-104) .In March 1991, plaintiff commenced yet another action,

filing a 281-page conplaint with 155 exhibits purporting toallege 105 causes of action, seeking relief under 42 USC § 1983including $615 million in damages. Judge McAvoy's dismissal ofthe complaint was affirmed by this Court. SSS. CQiiib? yui i?*?

svatem nf York. No. 91-CV-349 (NDNY, June 14, 1991) ,

affd. No. 91-7703 (2d Cir, February 27, 1992) (105-115, 118-

1 1 9 )

During the course of the Family Court support proceeding,plaintiff failed to appear at a scheduled hearing before JudgeAustin on two consecutive occasions; consequently, a warrant forhis arrest was issued on September 16, 1991 (29, 58, 143).

Also in the course of that proceeding, plaintiff moved,alia, for a declaration that certain sections of the Family

Court Act, including sections 433, 435 and 454, wereunconstitutional. In Septemiber 1992 that motion was denied byJudge Austin (143-144). Because the order denying this reliefwas non-final, it was not subject to immediate appeal. Car^lla y

'In addition, plaintiff's mother, Elinor King, commenced twoseparate nro se actions against various State and other defend^tsin the United States District Court for the Northern District ofNew York, based on claims arising from her son's divorce andcustody dispute. The district court's dismissals of those actxonswere affirmed by this Court. SS£. Siaa-V-ilifflSa, No. 91-cy-952(NDNY, November 29, 1991), MM, No. 91-9317 (2d Cir toy 8, 1992)/ l o r t - n o l a n i - K i n a v A b r a m s . N o . 9 2 - C V- 1 0 0 4 ( N D N Y F e b r u a r y 2 0 ,

pffd NO. B3-6065 (2d Cir, October 22, 1^3) (141-142).

Col l i ns . 614 NYS2d 329 (3d Dep t ) , aoo d ismissed and Iv den ied . 84

N Y 2 d 8 5 0 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( a p p e a l o f n o n - fi n a l F a i t i i l y C o u r t o r d e r d e e m e d

in5)roper under CPLR and Fami ly Cour t Act ) (145) .

T h e A c t ; i Q n B e l o w

I n J u l y 1 9 9 4 , p l a i n t i f f c o m m e n c e d t h e i n s t a n t a c t i o n

p u r s u a n t t o 4 2 U S C § 1 9 8 3 i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r

t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f N e w Yo r k a g a i n s t J u d g e A u s t i n , A t t o r n e y

M o r s i l l o , C a s e y, C a r e l l a , t h e S a r a t o g a C o i i n t y S u p p o r t C o l l e c t i o n

U n i t , a n d t h e U n i fi e d C o u r t S y s t e m o f N e w Yo r k ( 2 0 - 8 6 ) . A l l e g i n g

t h a t , b e c a u s e p l a i n t i f f m i g h t b e h e l d i n c o n t e n ^ t a n d i n ^ r i s o n e d

f o r m o r e t h a n s i x m o n t h s u n d e r t h e F a m i l y C o u r t A c t f o r h i s

f a i l u r e t o p a y s u p p o r t , t h e s u p p o r t p r o c e e d i n g s h o u l d i n c l u d e a

pub l i c t r i a l by j u ry under the S ix th Amendment , p la in t i f f sough t ,

i n t e r a l i a . ( 1 ) a d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t s t a t i n g t h a t N e w Yo r k

F a m i l y C o u r t A c t § § 4 3 3 a n d 4 3 5 w e r e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ; ^ a n d

( 2 ) a n o r d e r c o n p e l l i n g a p u b l i c j u r y t r i a l i n f e d e r a l c o u r t t o

a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e s u p p o r t p r o c e e d i n g ( 3 6 - 3 7 ) .

^Family Court Act § 433 provides as fol lows:

U p o n t h e r e t u r n o f t h e s i i m m o n s o r w h e n ar e s p o n d e n t i s b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e c o u r tp u r s u a n t t o a w a r r a n t , t h e c o u r t s h a l l p r o c e e dt o h e a r a n d d e t e m i n e t h e c a s e . T h er e s p o n d e n t s h a l l b e i n f o r m e d o f t h e c o n t e n t so f t h e p e t i t i o n , a d v i s e d o f h i s r i g h t t oc o u n s e l , a n d s h a l l b e g i v e n o p p o r t u n i t y t o b eheard and to present witnesses. The court mayexclude the publ ic f rom the court in a properc a s e .

Fam i l y Cou r t Ac t § 435 (a ) p rov i des , i n pe r t i nen t pa r t , t ha ts u p p o r t h e a r i n g s b e f o r e t h e F a m i l y C o u r t s h o u l d b e c o n d u c t e dw i t h o u t a j u r y .

6

P l a i n t i f f ' s r e q u e s t f o r a n o r d e r s t a y i n g t h e s u p p o r t p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e

t h e F a m i l y C o u r t ( 3 6 ) w a s d e n i e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ( 1 9 ) .

In Ju ly 1994 , Judge Aus t in he ld an open to the pub l i c Fami l y Cour t

t r i a l a d d r e s s i n g c l a i m s a n d c o u n t e r c l a i m s i n t h e s u p p o r t p r o c e e d i n g

aga ins t p la in t i f f . ^ Co l l i ns ' appo in ted counse l was a t h i s d ie a t a l l

t i m e s d u r i n g t h e t r i a l . C o l l i n s w a s a l s o p e r m i t t e d t o a c t p r o s e a s w e l l

a s t h r o u g h h i s c o u n s e l .

On Sep tembe r 17 , 1994 , t he d i s t r i c t cou r t (McAvoy, J . ) i s sued a

m e m o r a n d u m d e c i s i o n a n d o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t ( 11 - 1 8 ) . R e l y i n g

o n t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g s i n D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

V . F e l d m a n . 4 6 0 U S 4 6 2 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , a n d R o o k e r v . F i d e l i t y T r u s t C o . . 2 6 3 U S

4 1 3 ( 1 9 2 3 ) , t h e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t p l a i n t i f f w a s i m p r o p e r l y r e s o r t i n g t o

t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s t o a p p e a l o r d e r s o f s t a t e j u d i c i a l d e f e n d a n t s i n a

p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e t h e N e w Y o r k S t a t e c o u r t s ( 1 4 - 1 5 ) . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o u n d t h a t , b e c a u s e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s a r o s e i n t h e c o n t e x t

o f a n o n g o i n g s t a t e p r o c e e d i n g , a d d r e s s e d i m p o r t a n t s t a t e i n t e r e s t s , a n d

c o u l d b e r e v i e w e d i n d u e c o u r s e i n s t a t e c o u r t , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h o u l d

d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s u n d e r t h e a b s t e n t i o n d o c t r i n e s e t

f o r t h i n Yo u n g e r v . H a r r i s , 4 0 1 U S 3 7 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ( 1 5 - 1 7 ) .

C o l l i n s a p p e a l e d . ( 8 0 9 ) .

J u d g e A u s t i n h a s h a n d e d d o w n a d e c i s i o n a n d o r d e r d a t e d D e c e m b e r 2 9 ,

1 9 9 4 , f o l l o w i n g t h e t r i a l . C o l l i n s h a s fi l e d a N o t i c e o f A p p e a l d a t e d

J a n u a r y 3 , 1 9 9 5 , f r o m t h a t d e c i s i o n a n d o r d e r t o t h e N e w Yo r k S u p r e m e

C o u r t , A p p e l l a t e D i v i s i o n , T h i r d D e p a r t m e n t . T h a t a p p e a l i s n o w p e n d i n g .

^ Prior to the July trial, the attorney appointed to represent plaintiff from the SaratogaCounty Public Defenders Office sought and was granted permission to be relieved from serviceas plaintiffs counsel on account of plaintiffs inappropriate "behavior (163-167).

7

A R G U M E N T

P L A I N T I F F ' S C L A I M S A G A I N S T T H E D E F E N D A N T S ,N I C H O L A S D . M O R S I L L O A N D A R L E N E M . C A R E L L A ,A N D T H E O T H E R S T A T E D E F E N D A N T S W E R E P R O P E R L YD I S M I S S E D B Y T H E C O U R T B E L O W U N D E R T H ERQQKgR-FELPMAN DOCTRINE AND THE YOUNGERA B S T E N T I O N D O C T R I N E ,

I t i s w e l l - s e t t l e d t h a t a p p e a l t h r o u g h t h e s t a t e c o u r t s t o t h e

Supreme Cour t o f the Un i ted S ta tes i s the exc lus ive p rocedure by wh ich a

s t a t e c o u r t o r d e r m i g h t b e r e v i e w e d b y t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s f o r

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e r r o r . R o o k e r v F i d e l i t y T r u s t C o . . 2 6 3 U S 4 1 3 , 4 1 5 - 1 6

( 1 9 2 3 ) . A s t h i s C o u r t n o t e d i n T e x a c o I n c . v P e n n z o i l C o . . 7 8 4 F 2 d 1 1 3 3

( 2 d C i r 1 9 8 6 ) , r e v ' d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s . 4 8 1 U S 1 ( 1 9 8 7 ) :

[ A ] n i n f e r i o r f e d e r a l c o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d b yC o n g r e s s p u r s u a n t t o A r t . I l l , § 1 , o f t h eC o n s t i t u t i o n m a y n o t a c t a s a n a p p e l l a t et r i b u n a l f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f o v e r r u l i n g as t a t e c o u r t j u d g m e n t , e v e n t h o u g h t h ej u d g m e n t m a y r e s t o n a n e r r o n e o u s r e s o l u t i o no f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r f e d e r a l l a w i s s u e s . T h ee x c l u s i v e p r o c e d u r e f o r f e d e r a l r e v i e w i st h a t s p e c i f i e d b y 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 7 .

I n t h e i n s t a n t m a t t e r , p l a i n t i f f h a s s o u g h t t o e m p l o y t h e f e d e r a l

d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o n i m t o a t t a c k c o l l a t e r a l l y a v a r i e t y o f s t a t e c o u r t

judgments and orders issued within the context of the Family Court

e n f o r c e m e n t p r o c e e d i n g a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f ( s e e . 8 4 - 8 5 ) . T h e s e o r d e r s , a n d

the issues ra ised in p la int i f f 's complaint , may be addressed fu l ly in the

State cour t fo rum and may be rev iewed on appea l hy Sta te appe l la te

cour ts . In fac t , as prev ious ly s ta ted, Col l ins has appealed the dec is ion

and order of Judge Austin dated 12/29/94; that appeal is st i l l pending

and unreso lved. Under these c i rcumstances, the d is t r ic t cour t cor rect ly

concluded that plaintiff's choice of a federal fonam was improper and

t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d

8

i n t h e c o m p l a i n t . U n d e r t h e R o o k e r - F e l d m a n d o c t r i n e / t h e s e m a t t e r s , i f

t h e y a r e t o b e a d d r e s s e d a t a l l i n a f e d e r a l c o u r t , m u s t b e a d d r e s s e d a t

a l l i n a f e d e r a l c o u r t , m u s t b e r a i s e d i n a p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i t o

the Supreme Court only after all state court proceedings have been

e x h a u s t e d .

I t i s a lso we l l -se t t led tha t p r inc ip les o f comi ty and federa l i sm

s h o u l d i n c l i n e a f e d e r a l c o u r t t o a b s t a i n f r o m a d d r e s s i n g i s s u e s i n v o l v e d

in a pending state proceeding where important state interests are

implicated and the plaintiff has an avenue open for review of his or her

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i m i n t h e s t a t e c o u r t s . Y o u n g e r v . H a r r i s . 4 0 1 U S 3 7

( 1 9 7 1 ) ; C e c o s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . I n c . v. J n r l i n a . 8 9 5 F 2 d 6 6 { 2 d C i r 1 9 9 0 ) .

This abstent ion pract ice is not mit igated by broad-based al legat ions of

federa l const i tu t iona l v io la t ions or by the c la im that s ta te procedures

themse l ves a re uncons t i t u t i ona l . Moo re v. S ims . 422 US 415 , 426 n . 10 ,

427 (1979) . Nor is the abstention principle avoided by an allegation of

b a d f a i t h o n t h e p a r t o f s t a t e a u t h o r i t i e s . M a s o n v. D e p a r t m e n t a l

P iSCiPl ihayy Comm., 894 F2d 512 (2d c i r ) , cer t denied. 497 US 1025

( 1 9 9 0 ) .

I n the ins tan t mat te r, p la in t i f f ' s comp la in t seeks federa l cour t

rev iew o f i ssues inc lud ing the cons t i tu t iona l i t y o f s ta te s ta tu tes , the

scope o f j u r i sd i c t i on among va r i ous New Yo rk S ta te cou r t s , and t he

constitutional propriety of state court procedures adjudging plaintiff 's

con temp t be fo re t he Fam i l y Cou r t . As no ted above , t he i s sues add ressed

in the complaint have arisen in their entirety in an ongoing proceeding

in the Family Court which has been concluded and which has been appealed

properly to the state appel late courts upon the conclusion of that

proceeding. Moreover, as the court below correct ly noted, certa in of

injunctive claims have been rendered moot the Family

9

Court's decision to hold an open hearing on the support and contemptissue, which hearing has in fact been held and concluded. Under thesecircumstances, the court below properly determined that it lackedjurisdiction over this matter and that, in any event, it should abstainfrom the exercise of any jurisdiction which it might have.

Plaintiff's contrary claims are meritless. Indeed, the majority ofissues addressed in plaintiff's brief -- the criminality under state lawof plaintiff's failure to pay support (App Br. pp 8-10), the

constitutionality of Family Court Act §§ 433 and 435 (App Br pp 10-23),and judicial immunity (App Br. pp 35-38) - were not reached by the courtbelow and need not be addressed by this Court. On the other hand,plaintiff's brief is conspicuously silent on the RQokg>r-Feldmanjurisdictional issue and fails to argue that that doctrine isinapplicable to the instant matter. Likewise, plaintiff's discussion ofthe Yowq^r abstention doctrine (App Br pp 23-29) is largely incoherent,consisting of extensive quotations from cause authority withoutapplication of the principles of those cases to the matter at bar.Nowhere has plaintiff articulated an intelligible argument that Younaprshould not apply, by establishing that there is no ongoing stateproceeding in this matter, that the issues addressed in the complaint donot implicate important state interests, or that plaintiff will be unableto seek review of his constitutional claims in state court.

Moreover, plaintiff's facial challenges to the constitutionality ofFamily Court Act §§ 433 and 435 are misdirected. Contrary to plaintiff'sclaim, section 433 does not address the propriety of exclusion of thepublic in a contempt proceeding over the contemnor's objection; instead,it merely declares that the public may be excluded from Famiify Courtsupport proceedings in a proper case. Likewise, sections 435 and 454 do

to impq^pe^^^ upon a violator of a support - - —

1 0

order of incarceration "in excess of six months or $5,000.00 fine orboth" without a jury trial (App Br p 21). Instead, that section directsthe Family Court, in response to a person's willful failure to complywith a support order, to compel the violator to pay attorney's fees; italso permits the court, in appropriate instances to jail the violator for

up to six months. As this Court has held, this imprisonment provisiondoes not violate the Sixth Amendment. SfiS, United States ex rp>i. Griffin

V, 409 F2d 1300 {2d Cir 1969) (imprisonment for up to six monthsunder Family Court Act § 454 for contempt of support order does not

infringe upon Sixth Amendment rights).Under these circumstances, the court below properly held that plaintiff'scharges, arising from a domestic relations dispute and litigatedextensively albeit not conclusively -- before New York State courts,were not suitable for current review in a federal forum.

C O N C L U S I O N

THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSINGTHIS ACTION SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.

Schenectady, New YorkFebruary 9 , 1995.

R e s p e e j t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d .

n;e!|holas d. morsi o, esq.And as attorney r ARLENE M. CARELLAO f fi c e & p . 0 . A d d r e s s7 2 3 S t a t e S t r e e tSchenectady, New York 12307Te lephone; (518) 374-5522