Turner v. Turner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turner v. Turner

130 A.D.3d 609, 10 N.Y.S.3d 891

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

DecidedJuly 1, 2015

Docket2014-01194

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 130 A.D.3d 609 (Turner v. Turner) 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

Turner v. Turner, 130 A.D.3d 609, 10 N.Y.S.3d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Hope Schwartz Zimmerman, J.), dated November 25, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the plaintiff’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee to the extent of awarding her the sum of $10,000.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff an attorney’s fee in the sum of $10,000. In reaching this determination, the court properly considered the relative financial circumstances of the parties, the relative merit of their positions, and the fact that the defendant’s attorney prolonged the litigation by failing to appear at the scheduled attorney’s fee hearing (see Formica v Formica, 101 AD3d 805, 807 [2012]; Morales v Inzerra, 98 AD3d 484, 485 [2012]; Ventimiglia v Ventimiglia, 36 AD3d 899 [2007]; cf. Baron v Baron, 71 AD3d 807, 810-811 [2010]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Hope Schwartz Zimmerman, J.), dated November 25, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the plaintiff’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee to the extent of awarding her the sum of $10,000.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff an attorney’s fee in the sum of $10,000. In reaching this determination, the court properly considered the relative financial circumstances of the parties, the relative merit of their positions, and the fact that the defendant’s attorney prolonged the litigation by failing to appear at the scheduled attorney’s fee hearing (see Formica v Formica, 101 AD3d 805, 807 [2012]; Morales v Inzerra, 98 AD3d 484, 485 [2012]; Ventimiglia v Ventimiglia, 36 AD3d 899 [2007]; cf. Baron v Baron, 71 AD3d 807, 810-811 [2010]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 609, 10 N.Y.S.3d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-turner-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack