Kalish v. Kalish

289 A.D.2d 202, 733 N.Y.S.2d 717, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11822
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 3, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 202 (Kalish v. Kalish) 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
Kalish v. Kalish, 289 A.D.2d 202, 733 N.Y.S.2d 717, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered March 20, 2000, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded the defendant child support in the sum of $250 per week and an attorney’s fee in the sum of $10,000.

Ordered that the judgment is modified by deleting the provision thereof awarding the defendant an attorney’s fee in the sum of $10,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Cotut, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

“Child support is determined by the parents’ ability to provide for their child rather than their current economic situation” (Matter of Zwick v Kulhan, 226 AD2d 734). The plaintiff, [203]*203an ophthalmologist, worked part-time and earned approximately $144,000 during the last year of his practice in Philadelphia. Based on the evidence regarding the potential earning capacity of an ophthalmologist with experience commensurate with that of the plaintiff, the Supreme Court properly imputed annual income to him in the sum of $150,000 and awarded the defendant child support based on that figure.

The Supreme Court improperly awarded the defendant an attorney’s fee without the submission of an affidavit from her attorney (see, Sherman v Sherman, 168 AD2d 550, 551; McKean v McKean, 100 AD2d 537, 538). Therefore, the provision of the judgment awarding the defendant an attorney’s fee is deleted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination on this issue after the filing of appropriate affidavits (see, McKean v McKean, supra).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. 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

Related

Balaj v. Balaj
136 A.D.3d 672 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
SHAMP, LORI v. SHAMP, KEVIN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Shamp v. Shamp
133 A.D.3d 1213 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Iannone v. Iannone
34 Misc. 3d 387 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Appel v. Appel
54 A.D.3d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Kirby v. Kirby
51 A.D.3d 981 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Brian v. Brian
36 A.D.3d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Rand v. Rand
29 A.D.3d 976 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Nebons v. Nebons
26 A.D.3d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Douglas v. Douglas
7 A.D.3d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Rzepecki v. Rzepecki
6 A.D.3d 1134 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Nicosia v. Rios-Nicosia
303 A.D.2d 390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Bittner v. Bittner
296 A.D.2d 516 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
289 A.D.2d 202, 733 N.Y.S.2d 717, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalish-v-kalish-nyappdiv-2001.