Barcia v. Barcia

90 A.D.3d 921, 934 N.Y.2d 812
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 20, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Family Court did not err in denying her motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 842 (f) for an award of counsel fees in the sum of $5,413.50 on the ground that the respondent is the financially superior spouse (see Family Ct Act § 842 [f]; see also Matter of Amy Cohen L. v Howard N.L., 222 AD2d 677 [1995]; Merola v Merola, 146 AD2d 611, 612 [1989]; Matter of Leffingwell v Leffingwell, 86 AD2d 929, 930 [1982]; cf. Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a], [b]; § 238; Family Ct Act § 438 [a]; §§ 536, 641; Cohen v Cohen, 73 AD3d 832, 834 [2010]), or based on his failure to submit a statement of net worth and related papers as part of his opposition to the motion (cf. 22 NYCRR 202.16 [a], [k] [2], [4]; Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a], [b]; § 236 [A] [2]; [B] [4] [a]). Dillon, J.E, Eng, Austin and Miller, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barcia v. Barcia, 90 A.D.3d 921, 934 N.Y.2d 812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

90 A.D.3d 921 (Barcia v. Barcia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Christy v. Christy
2020 NY Slip Op 2468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)