Lewis v. Redhead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. Redhead

19 A.D.3d 495, 796 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6550

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

DecidedJune 13, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 495 (Lewis v. Redhead) 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

Lewis v. Redhead, 19 A.D.3d 495, 796 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to the Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Grosvenor, J.), dated September 18, 2003, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Fasone, H.E.), dated May 29, 2003, inter alia, denying her motion for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Hearing Examiner providently exercised his discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee where it was not shown that the parties were in disparate financial positions or that the respondent had prolonged the proceedings (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b]; Family Ct Act § 438 [a]; O’Shea v O’Shea, 93 NY2d 187, 193 [1999]; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]; O’Brien v O’Brien, 66 NY2d 576 [1985]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a child support proceeding pursuant to the Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Grosvenor, J.), dated September 18, 2003, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Fasone, H.E.), dated May 29, 2003, inter alia, denying her motion for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Hearing Examiner providently exercised his discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee where it was not shown that the parties were in disparate financial positions or that the respondent had prolonged the proceedings (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b]; Family Ct Act § 438 [a]; O’Shea v O’Shea, 93 NY2d 187, 193 [1999]; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]; O’Brien v O’Brien, 66 NY2d 576 [1985]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 495, 796 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-redhead-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack