Vesselin Mitev

vess mitev-5


A prolific litigator, Vesselin Mitev has represented heads of state, heirs to fortunes, members of royal families and socialites, as well as hard-working individuals. Before joining Ray, Mitev & Associates, he was the former bureau chief for the nation’s most prestigious legal publication, the New York Law Journal. He is admitted to the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Eastern and Southern Districts of New York as well as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

From its inception, Mr. Mitev treats every case as though it were to be taken to trial, methodically assessing every fact and piece of evidence, and conforming it to adapt to developing laws. He works tirelessly to advance client interests while evaluating the costs, benefits, and risks of litigation. His trial preparation approach leads to results, whether the case proceeds to trial or a successful result is obtained before the filing of the complaint.

Clients have attributed Mr. Mitev’s advancement of their case to his careful, relentless, and meticulous development of the facts. Whether he is speaking through motion practice, a mediation, a settlement negotiation, or in a courtroom, his approach is to make the client’s position resonate.

He has successfully tried cases and conducted hearings at every trial court level in New York (District, County, Family, and Supreme). Mr. Mitev has enjoyed great success in appellate matters, having prevailed in the majority of appeals written and argued. In July 2014, in the Matter of Fallo v. Tallon, the Appellate Division, in a rare decision, reversed the trial court’s grant of custody to the father, and, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, awarded sole custody to the mother.

Mr. Mitev represented the father in Schulz v. Schulz, where the trial court held that a parent (the mother, in that case) who relocated without court permission may not thereafter rely on the self-created change in circumstances in a subsequent relocation petition; and he represented a member of the NRA’s top brass in D’Alauro v. D’Alauro, a nationally covered divorce trial, where Mr. Mitev obtained a rare writ of assistance and appointment of his client as a receiver of the marital residence.

His other notable cases include Malone v. County of Suffolk, a precedent-setting case holding that doctors who knowingly over-prescribe narcotics create a public nuisance and may be liable to the public at large; Boyle v. County of Suffolk, a Federal case dealing with forfeiture proceedings against drivers accused of drunk driving in Suffolk County, Grasso v. Grasso, an Appellate Division, Second Department case dealing with post – judgment matrimonial counsel fees, People v. McElroy, a case dealing with post-conviction supervision of sex offenders under the SORA law and the anomalous results imposed by sentencing guidelines in certain circumstances; People v. Syska, re-affirming the basic Constitutional principle that there is no duty to answer a police officer’s questions (other than basic ID information) and that asking police if they have a warrant is not sufficient for an obstruction of justice/resisting arrest charge.

Mr. Mitev has been recognized for his pro bono service on several occasions.  He was awarded Hofstra’s Gold Level Pro Bono Certificate in 2009.

A 2014 and 2015 Super Lawyers Rising Star, Mr. Mitev speaks Bulgarian, Russian, and English. His work has been cited in the Journal of Law & Policy; the New York Practice Series; the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review; Patent Law Fundamentals; Florida Coastal Law Review; eDiscovery for Corporate Counsel; Northwestern University Law Review; the Touro Law Review, among others.

His cases have been featured in the New York Post, the New York Law Journal, and the Long Island Press. He has appeared as a panel member on The Dr. Drew Show. From 2011 to 2013, he wrote an online column for the New York Law Journal called “Past the Bar.”

A list of some of Mr. Mitev’s cases is below:

Criminal Law

People v. Syska, NYLJ, July 24, 2012

Criminal charges dismissed, pre-trial, because the accusatory instrument was insufficient; case stands for proposition that asking a police officer if they have a warrant can never be a crime.                                                                                       

People v. McElroy, NYLJ, December 30, 2011

Sex offender’s risk level lowered after hearing; after the Court agreed that crimes did not involve actual, physical victims.

Matrimonial/Family Law

Matter of Fallo v. Tallon, 2014 Slip Op 04759

Trial Court’s determination that custody of two small children should be given to their father reversed on appeal, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with sole custody being awarded to the children’s mother.

D’Alauro v. D’Alauro, NYLJ, January 27, 2014

“Wife of NRA top brass has become loud voice of anti-gun advocates,” NY Daily News, November 4, 2013

A nationally reported case wherein Mr. Mitev represented a high ranking member of the NRA and obtained a rare writ of assistance during the divorce trial, requiring the sheriff to evict the recalcitrant spouse, with the Court appointing Mr. Mitev’s client as receiver.

Schulz v. Schulz, NYLJ, December 12, 2012

Mr. Mitev represented a father who was deprived of his children by their mother moving away to Florida and sued to return them back to New York. After trial, the Court found that the mother could not rely upon self-created change in circumstances to relocate.

Grasso v. Grasso, 83 AD3d 1000 (2d Dept. 2011)

Referee erroneously awarded counsel fees; reversed on appeal.

Tarone v. Tarone, 2013 NY Slip Op 01545 (2d Dept. 2013)

Court properly found that ex-husband was guilty of contempt in failing to pay due and owing maintenance to his ex-wife; upheld on appeal.

Complex Civil Litigation/Personal Injury

Malone v. County of Suffolk, NYLJ, December 10, 2012

Precedent-setting case holding doctors who overprescribe narcotics may be liable to the public at large; the case arose out of the tragic Father’s Day murders at a Medford pharmacy.                                         

Stuve v. Baingan, NYLJ, Aug. 27, 2013

A driver’s invocation of the emergency doctrine is a triable issue of fact; summary judgment previously granted, recalled after re-argument and denied.

Boyle v. County of Suffolk, 10-CV-3606 (EDNY, 2010)

County’s forfeiture proceedings were found to be unconstitutional, after challenge was brought by driver charged with DWI who had his vehicle improperly impounded.

Matovcik v. Times Beacon, 2012-03646 (2d Dept. 2013)

Newspaper that printed libelous article about teacher denied summary judgment; reversed on appeal.

Matter of Jorge T., an infant, v. Deer Park SD (EDNY 2014)

“Duct taped kid makes school pay,” New York Post, May 30, 2014

School that employed bus driver who improperly disciplined student by taping his mouth shut sued; case ended with a favorable settlement to clients.


To contact Mr. Mitev, click here.