Salerno v. Salerno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salerno v. Salerno

300 A.D.2d 667, 751 N.Y.S.2d 794

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 667 (Salerno v. Salerno) 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

Salerno v. Salerno, 300 A.D.2d 667, 751 N.Y.S.2d 794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Bangs County [668]*668(Weinstein, J.), dated December 5, 2001, which granted the mother’s postdisposition application for an attorney’s fee and expert fee in the sum of $11,577.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the mother the full cost of the expert’s fee and a percentage of her reasonable attorney’s fee, considering the parties’ disparate incomes and the fact that some of the mother’s fees were incurred because of the father’s dilatory tactics (see O’Shea v O’Shea, 93 NY2d 187; Krigsman v Krigsman, 288 AD2d 189).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Bangs County [668]*668(Weinstein, J.), dated December 5, 2001, which granted the mother’s postdisposition application for an attorney’s fee and expert fee in the sum of $11,577.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the mother the full cost of the expert’s fee and a percentage of her reasonable attorney’s fee, considering the parties’ disparate incomes and the fact that some of the mother’s fees were incurred because of the father’s dilatory tactics (see O’Shea v O’Shea, 93 NY2d 187; Krigsman v Krigsman, 288 AD2d 189).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 667, 751 N.Y.S.2d 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salerno-v-salerno-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack