Sawyer v. Yuan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sawyer v. Yuan

95 A.D.3d 1133, 943 N.Y.S.2d 903

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

DecidedMay 15, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 95 A.D.3d 1133 (Sawyer v. Yuan) 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

Sawyer v. Yuan, 95 A.D.3d 1133, 943 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, Nancy S. Erickson, the attorney for the mother, appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Ebrahimoff, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated March 19, 2010, as denied the motion of her assignor, the mother’s former attorney, for an award of counsel fees.

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

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion for an award of counsel fees (see O’Brien v O’Brien, 66 NY2d 576, 590 [1985]; Matter of Pane v Pane, 26 AD3d 386 [2006]). Considering the financial circumstances of both parties, and the circumstances of the case as a whole, the motion for an award of counsel fees was properly denied (see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rósete, 70 NY2d 879, 881-882 [1987]; Priehep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61, 64 [2008]; Matter of Sullivan v Sullivan, 40 AD3d 865, 867 [2007]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Miller, 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, Nancy S. Erickson, the attorney for the mother, appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Ebrahimoff, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated March 19, 2010, as denied the motion of her assignor, the mother’s former attorney, for an award of counsel fees.

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

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion for an award of counsel fees (see O’Brien v O’Brien, 66 NY2d 576, 590 [1985]; Matter of Pane v Pane, 26 AD3d 386 [2006]). Considering the financial circumstances of both parties, and the circumstances of the case as a whole, the motion for an award of counsel fees was properly denied (see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rósete, 70 NY2d 879, 881-882 [1987]; Priehep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61, 64 [2008]; Matter of Sullivan v Sullivan, 40 AD3d 865, 867 [2007]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 1133, 943 N.Y.S.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sawyer-v-yuan-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack