Latona v. Latona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Latona v. Latona

210 A.D.2d 899, 621 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13359

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 899 (Latona v. Latona) 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

Latona v. Latona, 210 A.D.2d 899, 621 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Attorney’s fees should not be awarded without conducting a hearing or requiring proof by affidavit substantiating the attorney’s fees requested (see, Cooper v Cooper, 179 AD2d 1035; Kieffer v Kieffer, 163 AD2d 907, 908; Falcone v Falcone, 112 AD2d 796, 797). Defendant did not request a hearing. The parties refer to an attorney’s affidavit in their briefs, but such affidavit is not in the record. We, therefore, modify the judgment appealed from by vacating the thirty-first and thirty-second decretal paragraphs and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination regarding attorney’s fees based upon proper proof.

We otherwise affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Whelan, J.). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.—Attorney’s Fees.) Present—Green, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Attorney’s fees should not be awarded without conducting a hearing or requiring proof by affidavit substantiating the attorney’s fees requested (see, Cooper v Cooper, 179 AD2d 1035; Kieffer v Kieffer, 163 AD2d 907, 908; Falcone v Falcone, 112 AD2d 796, 797). Defendant did not request a hearing. The parties refer to an attorney’s affidavit in their briefs, but such affidavit is not in the record. We, therefore, modify the judgment appealed from by vacating the thirty-first and thirty-second decretal paragraphs and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination regarding attorney’s fees based upon proper proof.

We otherwise affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Whelan, J.). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.—Attorney’s Fees.) Present—Green, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 899, 621 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latona-v-latona-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack