Bungay v. Morin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bungay v. Morin

256 A.D.2d 462, 683 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13485

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 462 (Bungay v. Morin) 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

Bungay v. Morin, 256 A.D.2d 462, 683 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), entered November 18, 1997, as directed him,to pay one-half of the legal fee of the Law Guardian for the children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances presented here, the Family Court’s [463]*463apportionment of the Law Guardian’s fee was not improper (see, Petek v Petek, 239 AD2d 327; Cilento v Cilento, 225 AD2d 648; Hughes v Hughes, 224 AD2d 389). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), entered November 18, 1997, as directed him,to pay one-half of the legal fee of the Law Guardian for the children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances presented here, the Family Court’s [463]*463apportionment of the Law Guardian’s fee was not improper (see, Petek v Petek, 239 AD2d 327; Cilento v Cilento, 225 AD2d 648; Hughes v Hughes, 224 AD2d 389). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 462, 683 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bungay-v-morin-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack