Dalessandro v. O'Brien

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dalessandro v. O'Brien

285 A.D.2d 592, 729 N.Y.S.2d 625, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7588

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

DecidedJuly 23, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 592 (Dalessandro v. O'Brien) 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

Dalessandro v. O'Brien, 285 A.D.2d 592, 729 N.Y.S.2d 625, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, by permission, as limited by his brief, from so much of [593]*593an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Koenig, J.), entered August 31, 2000, as awarded the mother an interim attorney’s fee in the sum of $15,000.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a determination consistent herewith.

The award of an attorney’s fee is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Olesh v Auerbach, 227 AD2d 406). The factors to be considered when determining a reasonable attorney’s fee include the petitioning party’s ability to pay, the nature and extent of the services rendered, the difficulty of the issues involved, and counsel’s experience and reputation (see, Olesh v Auerbach, supra, at 407; Matter of Rahmey v Blum, 95 AD2d 294). The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the mother an attorney’s fee without indicating that it had considered the relevant factors (see, Olesh v Auerbach, supra, at 407). Moreover, the rec.ord indicates that the court included in its award fees pertaining to matters other than this visitation proceeding (see, Lazaar v Lazaar, 248 AD2d 618). Goldstein, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, 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, by permission, as limited by his brief, from so much of [593]*593an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Koenig, J.), entered August 31, 2000, as awarded the mother an interim attorney’s fee in the sum of $15,000.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a determination consistent herewith.

The award of an attorney’s fee is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Olesh v Auerbach, 227 AD2d 406). The factors to be considered when determining a reasonable attorney’s fee include the petitioning party’s ability to pay, the nature and extent of the services rendered, the difficulty of the issues involved, and counsel’s experience and reputation (see, Olesh v Auerbach, supra, at 407; Matter of Rahmey v Blum, 95 AD2d 294). The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the mother an attorney’s fee without indicating that it had considered the relevant factors (see, Olesh v Auerbach, supra, at 407). Moreover, the rec.ord indicates that the court included in its award fees pertaining to matters other than this visitation proceeding (see, Lazaar v Lazaar, 248 AD2d 618). Goldstein, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 592, 729 N.Y.S.2d 625, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dalessandro-v-obrien-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack