Monticello v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Monticello v. Brown

41 A.D.3d 559, 836 N.Y.S.2d 424

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

DecidedJune 12, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 559 (Monticello v. Brown) 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

Monticello v. Brown, 41 A.D.3d 559, 836 N.Y.S.2d 424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for child custody, the law guardian appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated December 20, 2005, as, in effect, denied, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was to direct the father to pay the balance of a fee due and owing to him.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court’s determination regarding the apportionment of the law guardian’s fee was proper (see Matter of Plovnick v Klinger, 10 AD3d 84 [2004]; Matter of Department of Social Servs. v Wolfson, 228 AD2d 594 [1996]). Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for child custody, the law guardian appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated December 20, 2005, as, in effect, denied, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was to direct the father to pay the balance of a fee due and owing to him.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court’s determination regarding the apportionment of the law guardian’s fee was proper (see Matter of Plovnick v Klinger, 10 AD3d 84 [2004]; Matter of Department of Social Servs. v Wolfson, 228 AD2d 594 [1996]). Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 559, 836 N.Y.S.2d 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monticello-v-brown-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack