O'Shea v. Parker

16 A.D.3d 510, 790 N.Y.S.2d 717, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2591
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 14, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 510 (O'Shea v. Parker) 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
O'Shea v. Parker, 16 A.D.3d 510, 790 N.Y.S.2d 717, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), dated February 6, 2004, which directed her to pay counsel fees in the sum of $6,000 to the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the mother to pay the sum of $6,000 towards the father’s counsel fees, which represented approximately one-half the amount of counsel fees incurred by the father in this proceeding (see O’Shea v O’Shea, 93 NY2d 187 [1999]; Matter of Hulsair v Benedetto, 254 AD2d 488 [1998]). The Family Court has the authority to award counsel fees in custody proceedings when warranted under the circumstances of the case (see Family Ct Act § 651; Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b]; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]; Matter of O’Neil v O’Neil, 193 AD2d 16 [1993]). Here, the Family Court made factual findings that the mother was obstructionist in changing attorneys twice and in making unsubstantiated allegations of abuse against the son of the father’s girlfriend (see Dowd v White, 155 AD2d 459 [1989]; Stern v Stern, 67 AD2d 253 [1979]). The par[511]*511ties stipulated that the Family Court could make its determination without a hearing (see Matter of Zirkind v Zirkind, 218 AD2d 745 [1995]; Sadofsky v Sadofsky, 78 AD2d 520 [1980]). We therefore decline to disturb the Family Court’s determination. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang
104 A.D.3d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Baribault v. Sauvola
101 A.D.3d 865 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
S.B. v. W.A.
38 Misc. 3d 780 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
Ross v. Ross
96 A.D.3d 856 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Reilly v. Reilly
94 A.D.3d 897 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Beren v. Beren
92 A.D.3d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Dempsey v. Dempsey
78 A.D.3d 1179 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Larkin v. White
73 A.D.3d 1179 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Detouche v. Shepherd
42 A.D.3d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Sullivan v. Sullivan
40 A.D.3d 865 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Pane v. Pane
26 A.D.3d 386 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Belle v. DeMilia
19 A.D.3d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 510, 790 N.Y.S.2d 717, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oshea-v-parker-nyappdiv-2005.