Matter of Brooke M. v. Christopher M.

2020 NY Slip Op 06957, 132 N.Y.S.3d 745, 188 A.D.3d 605
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 24, 2020
DocketDocket No. F-47523/14 Appeal No. 12484 Case No. 2019-03240
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 06957 (Matter of Brooke M. v. Christopher M.) 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
Matter of Brooke M. v. Christopher M., 2020 NY Slip Op 06957, 132 N.Y.S.3d 745, 188 A.D.3d 605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Matter of Brooke M. v Christopher M. (2020 NY Slip Op 06957)
Matter of Brooke M. v Christopher M.
2020 NY Slip Op 06957
Decided on November 24, 2020
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: November 24, 2020
Before: Renwick, J.P., Kapnick, Gesmer, Kern, JJ.

Docket No. F-47523/14 Appeal No. 12484 Case No. 2019-03240

[*1]In the Matter of Brooke M. Also Known as Brookelyn M., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Christopher M., Respondent-Respondent.


Schoeman Updike Kaufman & Gerber, LLP, New York (Beth L. Kaufman of counsel), for appellant.

Michelle F.P. Roberts, New York, for respondent.



Order, Family Court, New York County (Jonathan H. Shim, J.), entered on or about May 20, 2019, which denied petitioner's objections to an order, same court (Lewis A. Borofsky, Support Magistrate), entered on or about May 25, 2018, denying her motion for attorneys' fees incurred in connection with child support litigation, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the objections granted to the extent of remanding the matter for a hearing to determine the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded, if any.

The court erred in denying petitioner's motion for attorneys' fees without first conducting an evidentiary hearing to explore the issues of a vast financial disparity between the [*2]parties, the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation, and the

reasonableness of the amount of the fees sought (see Matter of Brookelyn M. v Christopher M., 161 AD3d 662, 663 [1st Dept 2018]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: November 24, 2020



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

Related

§ 431
New York JUD § 431

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 06957, 132 N.Y.S.3d 745, 188 A.D.3d 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-brooke-m-v-christopher-m-nyappdiv-2020.