Peter Christopher Lomtevas

Peter Lomtevas is a licensed family law attorney specializing in divorce, child support, and child custody cases formerly in Schenectady and the New York Capitol region. A graduate of The Kew Forest School, Hofstra, and Touro College Law Center, Peter is also a member of the New York State Bar Association. Education • The Kew Forest School, 1966 - 1978 • Hofstra University, 1978 - 1981 • Touro College Law Center, 1993 - 1996 Civilian Awards • Distinguished Public Service Award, 2006: Brooklyn Borough President • Businessman of the Year, 2006: National Republican Congressional Committee • Conspicuous Service Medal, November 15, 2007: Serphin Maltese Admissions • US Supreme Court • US Court of Claims • US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces • US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit • US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit • US District Court, Northern District Florida • US District Court, Eastern District New York • US District Court, Southern District New York • Georgia (Inactive) • New York • Pennsylvania • Texas. Airborne School, Fort Benning, Georgia, 1981 • Infantry Officer Basic Course, 1982 • Infantry Mortar Platoon Officer Course, Fort Benning, Georgia, 1982 • US Army Berlin Brigade July, 1982 - May, 1985 • Infantry Officer Advanced Course, Fort Benning, Georgia, 1985 • Fort Dix, October 2, 1985 - March 23, 1989 • Combined Arms Services Staff School, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1987 • The University of Delaware Army ROTC, August 14, 1989 - July 1, 1993 • Air Assault School, Fort Belvoir, Maryland, 1991 Military Career and Achievements Airborne School, Fort Benning, Georgia, 1981 Infantry Officer Basic Course, 1982 Infantry Mortar Platoon Officer Course, Fort Benning, Georgia, 1982 US Army Berlin Brigade July, 1982 - May, 1985 Infantry Officer Advanced Course, Fort Benning, Georgia, 1985 Fort Dix, October 2, 1985 - March 23, 1989.

• Municipal Liability
• Wrongful Conviction

• Free Consultation
• Credit Cards Accepted
  Visa, Mastercard, American Express and Discover
• Rates, Retainers and Additional Information
  Fixed fees for most cases. An hourly fee of $300 is available. Pro hac vice representation slightly more.

EDNY/SDNY

Since 2001

Georgia

Since 2005

New York

Since 2000

Pennsylvania

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

ID Number: 330131

Since 2021

Texas

State Bar of Texas

ID Number: 24134031

Since 2023

2nd Circuit

Since 2001

D.C. Circuit

Since 2006

U.S. Supreme Court

Since 2006

Owner

Peter C. Lomtevas, Esq., P.C.

2004 - Current

Independently owned and family operated family law office specializing in child custody, child support, divorces, post judgment and appellate practice. Also specializing in criminal defense.

Touro College

J.D. (1996)

Distinguished Public Service Award

Brooklyn Borough President

2006

Texas State Bar  # 24134031

Member

2023 - Current

New York State Bar  # 3046414

Member

2000 - Current

Q. If a judge has 60 days to make a decision; what happens after that if the time has run out? Do i still get a trial?

April 3, 2024

A: This is precisely the kind of question we here on Justin are specifically prohibited from answering. We are not the asker's attorney and as such we do not know any of the operative facts of this asker's case. We are therefore prohibited from offering tips and tricks as to how to proceed, however, we can educate and teach askers about the law.

Apparently this is a child custody matter in a family court in the state of New York somewhere. We are not told why the asker filed both a petition and an order to show cause. Conferences are the norm during the discovery period of any special court litigation (family court is a "special" court) where statuses are shared and attempts at resolution of the case are made. The setting of trial dates is an automatic step to preserve valuable time for hearings. These dates can be vacated or can be adjusted for more conferences although as to this asker's case, we know of nothing of his case and do not know whether trial will occur or not.

There is no such thing as a "counter-OSC" in the civil practice law and rules, so we have no clue as to what the motions are for. Objecting to in-court service though technically correct is a bad idea because the opponent can serve a garbage can and allege proper service leaving the asker in the dark. If the judge favors the opposing parent, then garbage service can work unfair prejudice against the asker in the case. We cannot comment open the response the asker filed with an affidavit of service.

Article 22 of the CPLR states that upon submission of a fully brief motion, the court has sixty days to provide a written response with reasoning contained therein. However, each judge is different and each court is staffed and equipped differently. Sixty days can become one hundred days and there is nothing to do about this. There is also the issue of judicial competence. If this is a New York City case, then the mayor of the city appoints family court judges. These judges may never have practiced law before, and the appellate division will likely affirm their orders and decisions no matter how cockamamie those may be to protect the system from ridicule.

We simply do not know what is happening here other than a pro se parent is appearing in a policy court where an American family model is being forced down his throat. Facts matter for little in many cases where the judge is new at this practice. The aim is to fit a square peg into a round hole, and all the rest of civil practice is tailored around that social policy objective. However, we simply do not know anything of this asker's case to provide a cogent answer to his question. ... Read More

Q. How long can a parent go without seeing or asking about their children? before its considered abandonment?

April 1, 2024

A: The modern fad in family courts in most states including New York (as routinely upheld by the appellate divisions) is to reunify long lost parents with their children no matter the operative facts. There is no such thing as abandonment unless and until the child becomes an adult. A parent cannot obtain custody of an adult through family court.

Q. What is the likelihood of appellate court obtaining jurisdiction in a custody case if judicial misconduct is proven?

March 25, 2024

A: We are told so very little about both the procedural history and the substance of the asker's case so as to have to guess to fill in the blanks. At first blush, this appears to be a forced-stip case where the court's aim is to get the parties to agree to their own resolution according to local policy. Local policy could be fathers never get custody and mothers always lose it, for example. The outcome would have to match rather exactly the policy.

We do not know what is an "FO" petition. Guessing, this could be a family offense petition which the asker objected to being "erroneously" dismissed. Such a dismissal may be aimed to level the bargaining field between the parents. This means the asker loses a weapon on the battlefield and has to bargain from a lower position. We also do not have the petition to review so we cannot opine as to whether the petition was correctly executed as to its facts and assertions. Mismanagement of the contents of dismissal orders is typical for family court, but the dismissal nonetheless remains.

We find it hard to believe the asker "perfected" her appeal with a trial looming. It is more likely she fled a notice of appeal consistent with the authority contained in Family Court Act §1112. Perfecting the appeal requires the preparation of a brief which often takes months to complete. The appellate court will not provide legal advice as to "next steps." Those are entirely up to the asker to complete.

We do not know what trial is for if the "FO" petition was dismissed. Attorneys follow rules, practices and procedures which may not be known to the ordinary public. There is nothing else to say. ... Read More