Taormina v. Taormina

131 A.D.3d 696, 15 N.Y.S.3d 694
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 26, 2015
Docket2014-06954
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 696 (Taormina v. Taormina) 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
Taormina v. Taormina, 131 A.D.3d 696, 15 N.Y.S.3d 694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Janet C. Malone, J.), dated May 28, 2014. The order granted the plaintiff’s motion for an award of a counsel fee to the extent that it directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff a counsel fee in the amount of $7,781.25.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion for an award of a counsel fee is denied.

The plaintiff sought an award of a counsel fee pursuant to a judgment of divorce in connection with the defendant’s alleged defaults as to certain obligations set forth in that judgment. The judgment, however, required the nondefaulting party to give notice of alleged defaults by certified mail, and it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not give the defendant notice *697 of any alleged defaults by certified mail. Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of a counsel fee pursuant to the judgment (see Dallin v Dallin, 225 AD2d 728, 728 [1996]). Since the record does not reflect that the defendant’s alleged defaults as to certain obligations set forth in the judgment were “willful” within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 237 (c), that statute does not provide a proper alternative basis for the award of a counsel fee to the plaintiff (see Webber v Webber, 30 AD3d 723, 724 [2006]). Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in awarding the plaintiff a counsel fee.

In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contention (cf. Reynolds v Reynolds, 300 AD2d 645, 646-647 [2002]).

Mastro, J.R, Balkin, Chambers and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pillai v. Pillai
2017 NY Slip Op 6470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 A.D.3d 696, 15 N.Y.S.3d 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taormina-v-taormina-nyappdiv-2015.