Tornheim v. Tornheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tornheim v. Tornheim

303 A.D.2d 400, 755 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 400 (Tornheim v. Tornheim) 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

Tornheim v. Tornheim, 303 A.D.2d 400, 755 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and [401]*401ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yancey, J.), dated April 3, 2002, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant wife which was to confirm in part a report of the same court (Marks, J.H.O.), dated December 3, 2001, which, after a hearing, recommended that she be awarded an attorney’s fee of $25,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A “report and recommendation of a Judicial Hearing Officer should be confirmed if the findings in the report are supported by the record” (Tai Wing Hong Importers v King Realty Corp., 208 AD2d 710, 711 [1994]). Here, the Judicial Hearing Officer found that, under the circumstances, the defendant was entitled to an attorneys fee in the sum of $25,000 (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]). Since this finding is supported by the record, the report was properly confirmed (cf. Rosenzweig v Gomez, 295 AD2d 592 [2002]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Adams, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and [401]*401ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yancey, J.), dated April 3, 2002, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant wife which was to confirm in part a report of the same court (Marks, J.H.O.), dated December 3, 2001, which, after a hearing, recommended that she be awarded an attorney’s fee of $25,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A “report and recommendation of a Judicial Hearing Officer should be confirmed if the findings in the report are supported by the record” (Tai Wing Hong Importers v King Realty Corp., 208 AD2d 710, 711 [1994]). Here, the Judicial Hearing Officer found that, under the circumstances, the defendant was entitled to an attorneys fee in the sum of $25,000 (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]). Since this finding is supported by the record, the report was properly confirmed (cf. Rosenzweig v Gomez, 295 AD2d 592 [2002]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Adams, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 400, 755 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tornheim-v-tornheim-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack