Pane v. Pane

26 A.D.3d 386, 809 N.Y.S.2d 179
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 14, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 386 (Pane v. Pane) 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
Pane v. Pane, 26 A.D.3d 386, 809 N.Y.S.2d 179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, inter alia, to modify the visitation provisions of a stipulation of settlement dated April 17,1998, the terms of which were incorporated but did not merge into a judgment of divorce entered August 26, 1998, the petitioner former wife appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Pessala, J.), dated April 19, 2005, as denied her motion for an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

An award of a reasonable attorney’s fee in a matrimonial action is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]; Benzaken v Benzaken, 21 AD3d 391 [2005]).

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s request for an attorney’s fee. The parties’ [387]*387annual incomes are relatively equal, and based upon our review of the record, it does not appear that the respondent unnecessarily protracted the parties’ dispute or that his request that the parties’ son undergo a psychological evaluation was made without good faith. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court’s denial of the motion for an award of an attorney’s fee to the petitioner (see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, supra; Benzaken v Benzaken, supra; Comstock v Comstock, 1 AD3d 307 [2003]; Matter of Robinson v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 277 AD2d 76 [2000]; cf. Singer v Singer, 16 AD3d 666 [2005]; Matter of O'Shea v Parker, 16 AD3d 510 [2005]).

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sawyer v. Yuan
95 A.D.3d 1133 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Kessler v. Kessler
47 A.D.3d 892 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Detouche v. Shepherd
42 A.D.3d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.D.3d 386, 809 N.Y.S.2d 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pane-v-pane-nyappdiv-2006.