Dimitri Bourianov, a Forest Hills resident locked in a divorce and custody battle, says his case veered off the normal track when the judge assigned to it repeatedly kept out key evidence and appeared to shield a lawyer he accuses of having an affair with his wife. The claims, laid out in reporting published March 27, 2026, center on sexually explicit messages and photographs that Bourianov says were exchanged between the lawyer and his wife, along with rulings he contends tilted toward the other side. He says he has filed a grievance with the state watchdog and is seeking primary custody of his two children. The allegations are serious and, if substantiated, would raise questions about conflicts and procedural fairness in a Queens family court.
Allegations Inside a Queens Courtroom
According to Black Star News, Bourianov says the lawyer, identified in filings as Richard Lovell, traded sexually explicit e-mails and photographs with his wife and that some encounters allegedly took place inside the marital apartment while the children were at home. The outlet reports that Bourianov filed an initial divorce complaint in Richmond County on Sept. 26, 2018, and that the custody trial opened on Sept. 22 before being adjourned to Oct. 20, according to court documents it cites.
Bourianov further alleges that Justice Margaret Parisi McGowan ordered a reporter out of a morning court session when building superintendent Alvaro Rodriguez took the stand. The same report says McGowan later kept certain e-mails out of evidence after concluding that Bourianov’s prior counsel had not produced them during discovery.
What Judge McGowan Brings to the Bench
Margaret Parisi McGowan serves on the New York State Supreme Court in Queens County and has handled family and civil matters in the borough. An NY Courts decision and court listings place McGowan on Queens dockets and decisions, confirming that she is a regular trial-level justice in the county.
The recent reporting frames Bourianov’s accusations around McGowan’s rulings in his case, including decisions about what evidence jurists and the public could see and who could sit in the courtroom. Those procedural calls are subject to appeal and review within the state judicial system, even as the underlying personal allegations remain sharply disputed…