Sakowicz v. Sakowicz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sakowicz v. Sakowicz

52 A.D.3d 837, 859 N.Y.S.2d 388

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

DecidedJune 24, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.3d 837 (Sakowicz v. Sakowicz) 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

Sakowicz v. Sakowicz, 52 A.D.3d 837, 859 N.Y.S.2d 388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), entered June 21, 2007, as granted that branch of the father’s petition which was for an award of an attorney’s fee in the sum of $10,385.10.

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

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the father’s petition (see Family Ct Act § 652 [b] [i]; Matter of DeGrijze v Velcarrio, 228 [838]*838AD2d 500, 501 [1996]). The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding an attorney’s fee to the father in the sum of $10,385.10 (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b]). Fisher, J.P, Santucci, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), entered June 21, 2007, as granted that branch of the father’s petition which was for an award of an attorney’s fee in the sum of $10,385.10.

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

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the father’s petition (see Family Ct Act § 652 [b] [i]; Matter of DeGrijze v Velcarrio, 228 [838]*838AD2d 500, 501 [1996]). The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding an attorney’s fee to the father in the sum of $10,385.10 (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b]). Fisher, J.P, Santucci, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 837, 859 N.Y.S.2d 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sakowicz-v-sakowicz-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack