Brentrup v. Culkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brentrup v. Culkin

255 A.D.2d 207, 679 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12396

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 19, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 207 (Brentrup v. Culkin) 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

Brentrup v. Culkin, 255 A.D.2d 207, 679 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered November 19, 1997, which denied the motion of the guardian ad litem appointed to represent the [208]*208Culkin children for an order directing nonparty respondent Macaulay Culkin to, inter alia, pay her outstanding fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming arguendo the applicability of CPLR 1204 to the instant situation, we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the guardian ad litem in the instant custody proceeding to recover the outstanding fees incurred in that representation from Macaulay Culkin, one of the children she represented. The order appointing the guardian ad litem directed the children’s parents, the only parties to the action, to pay the guardian’s fees; the costs associated with the appointment were directly attributable to the litigation; and Macaulay lacked any involvement in the guardian’s appointment or control over the issues to be litigated. Concur— Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered November 19, 1997, which denied the motion of the guardian ad litem appointed to represent the [208]*208Culkin children for an order directing nonparty respondent Macaulay Culkin to, inter alia, pay her outstanding fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming arguendo the applicability of CPLR 1204 to the instant situation, we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the guardian ad litem in the instant custody proceeding to recover the outstanding fees incurred in that representation from Macaulay Culkin, one of the children she represented. The order appointing the guardian ad litem directed the children’s parents, the only parties to the action, to pay the guardian’s fees; the costs associated with the appointment were directly attributable to the litigation; and Macaulay lacked any involvement in the guardian’s appointment or control over the issues to be litigated. Concur— Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 207, 679 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brentrup-v-culkin-nyappdiv-1998.