Kapzynski v. Kapzynski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kapzynski v. Kapzynski

30 A.D.2d 962, 294 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3230

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 962 (Kapzynski v. Kapzynski) 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

Kapzynski v. Kapzynski, 30 A.D.2d 962, 294 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated January 18, 1968, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. This custody proceeding, brought on by petition and order to show cause, was referred to the Family Court by order of the Supreme Court. Section 651 of the Family Court Act provides, in such cases, that “the family court has jurisdiction to determine, with the same powers possessed by the supreme court * * * proceedings * * * for the determination of the custody of minors” (emphasis supplied). Further, subdivision (b) of section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law contains explicit authority for the award of counsel fees in custody proceedings in the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is clear the Family -Court must also have power to award counsel fees in a [963]*963custody proceeding referred to it, for a hearing de novo, by the Supreme Court. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated January 18, 1968, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. This custody proceeding, brought on by petition and order to show cause, was referred to the Family Court by order of the Supreme Court. Section 651 of the Family Court Act provides, in such cases, that “the family court has jurisdiction to determine, with the same powers possessed by the supreme court * * * proceedings * * * for the determination of the custody of minors” (emphasis supplied). Further, subdivision (b) of section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law contains explicit authority for the award of counsel fees in custody proceedings in the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is clear the Family -Court must also have power to award counsel fees in a [963]*963custody proceeding referred to it, for a hearing de novo, by the Supreme Court. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 962, 294 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kapzynski-v-kapzynski-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack