Verasco v. Verasco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Verasco v. Verasco

225 A.D.2d 616, 639 N.Y.2d 132, 639 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2153

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 616 (Verasco v. Verasco) 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

Verasco v. Verasco, 225 A.D.2d 616, 639 N.Y.2d 132, 639 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff moved to compel the defendant to comply with certain provisions of a stipulation of settlement which was incorporated, but not merged, into their judgment of divorce. Most of the issues were resolved by the parties. The Supreme Court directed a hearing on the issue of whether the defendant was responsible for sleep-away camp expenses.

The stipulation provided that "[t]he husband shall be responsible for the payment of the children’s day camp expenses until such child reaches the age of 13 years”. The stipulation did not obligate the defendant to contribute to the cost of sleep-away camp and therefore the court improperly directed the defendant to do so (see, Straker v Straker, 219 AD2d 707; Kromer v Kromer, 177 AD2d 472; Cooper v Farrell, 170 AD2d 571).

Although the Supreme Court has the discretionary power to award counsel fees, the exercise of that power must be supported by sufficient facts upon which a proper determination as to the amount claimed or amount being awarded can be based (see, Osborn v Osborn, 144 AD2d 350, 352). An award of counsel fees on the basis of affirmations alone was improper in the absence of a stipulation agreeing to that procedure (see, Lenczycki v Alexander, 209 AD2d 480, 482; Silverman v Silverman, 193 AD2d 595). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to [617]*617the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing solely on that issue. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff moved to compel the defendant to comply with certain provisions of a stipulation of settlement which was incorporated, but not merged, into their judgment of divorce. Most of the issues were resolved by the parties. The Supreme Court directed a hearing on the issue of whether the defendant was responsible for sleep-away camp expenses.

The stipulation provided that "[t]he husband shall be responsible for the payment of the children’s day camp expenses until such child reaches the age of 13 years”. The stipulation did not obligate the defendant to contribute to the cost of sleep-away camp and therefore the court improperly directed the defendant to do so (see, Straker v Straker, 219 AD2d 707; Kromer v Kromer, 177 AD2d 472; Cooper v Farrell, 170 AD2d 571).

Although the Supreme Court has the discretionary power to award counsel fees, the exercise of that power must be supported by sufficient facts upon which a proper determination as to the amount claimed or amount being awarded can be based (see, Osborn v Osborn, 144 AD2d 350, 352). An award of counsel fees on the basis of affirmations alone was improper in the absence of a stipulation agreeing to that procedure (see, Lenczycki v Alexander, 209 AD2d 480, 482; Silverman v Silverman, 193 AD2d 595). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to [617]*617the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing solely on that issue. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 616, 639 N.Y.2d 132, 639 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verasco-v-verasco-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack