Beren v. Beren

92 A.D.3d 676, 938 N.Y.2d 199
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 7, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 676 (Beren v. Beren) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beren v. Beren, 92 A.D.3d 676, 938 N.Y.2d 199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[677]*677Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the mother’s motion which was for leave to renew her prior motion for an award of an attorney’s fee in connection with the court’s determination as to custody and visitation. The mother’s excuse of law office failure for not including a statement of net worth with her initial moving papers was reasonable under the circumstances (see 22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [5]; Vita v Alstom Signaling, 308 AD2d 582, 583 [2003]). “ ‘Although a motion for leave to renew generally must be based on newly-discovered facts, this requirement is a flexible one, and a court has the discretion to grant renewal upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, provided that the movant offers a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the additional facts on the original motion’ ” (Smith v State of New York, 71 AD3d 866, 867-868 [2010], quoting Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Liberty Mut. Ins., 58 AD3d 727, 728 [2009]). Upon renewal, considering all the circumstances of this case, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the mother’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee to the extent of directing the father to pay her $25,000 (see Matter of Talty v Talty, 75 AD3d 648, 650 [2010]).

Further, in light of the father’s conduct in unnecessarily engaging in certain litigation related to the children, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the mother’s separate motion for an award of an attorney’s fee to the extent of directing the father to pay her $10,000 (see Chamberlain v Chamberlain, 24 AD3d 589, 594 [2005]; Matter of O’Shea v Parker, 16 AD3d 510 [2005]; Matter of Dowd v White, 155 AD2d 459 [1989]).

[678]*678The father’s remaining contentions either are without merit or are not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.R, Dickerson, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Burro v. Kang
2018 NY Slip Op 8457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Castor v. Cuevas
137 A.D.3d 734 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Calle v. Zimmerman
133 A.D.3d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Jovanovic v. Jovanovic
96 A.D.3d 1019 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 A.D.3d 676, 938 N.Y.2d 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beren-v-beren-nyappdiv-2012.