Scheinert v. Scheinert

223 A.D.2d 631, 637 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 433
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 22, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 631 (Scheinert v. Scheinert) 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
Scheinert v. Scheinert, 223 A.D.2d 631, 637 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated September 14, 1994, which denied his motion to vacate a determination of the same court dated February 22, 1994, directing his counsel to pay the plaintiffs counsel $1,000 in fees.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the defendant’s motion is granted, the determination dated February 22, 1994, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

The court ordered the defendant’s counsel to pay the plaintiffs counsel $1,000 in fees "for time spent in court due to actions of defendant’s counsel”. In doing so, the court stated that a hearing was not required to make such an award. This was error. Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (a), the court may award costs "in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting from frivolous conduct”. Costs may be awarded, however, only "after a reasonable opportunity to be heard” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [d]). Thus, the matter must be remitted to give the defendant’s counsel an opportunity to be heard, either orally or on papers, at the court’s discretion, on the issue of whether an award of costs is appropriate and the amount of attorney’s fees, if any, to be awarded as a result of the defense counsel’s conduct (see, Matter of Berrocales v Idels, 207 AD2d 446; Flaherty v Stavropoulos, 199 AD2d 301, 302). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kane v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority
40 A.D.3d 1040 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Falinski
254 A.D.2d 458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Telemark Construction Inc. v. Francis Fleetwood & Associates
236 A.D.2d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 A.D.2d 631, 637 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scheinert-v-scheinert-nyappdiv-1996.