William K. M. v. Anita M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

William K. M. v. Anita M.

100 A.D.2d 726, 473 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17715

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.2d 726 (William K. M. v. Anita M.) 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

William K. M. v. Anita M., 100 A.D.2d 726, 473 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The record supports the imposition of the condition in the order of visitation (see Matter of Darlene T., 28 NY2d 391, 395; Bunim v Bunim, 298 NY 391, 393). Additionally, considering the relative assets of the parties (see Matter of McDonald v McDonald, 94 AD2d 856; Drabek v Drabek, 92 AD2d 722), the court did not abuse its broad discretion under subdivision (a) of section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law in awarding respondent $3,470 for attorney’s fees incurred in defending the proceeding brought by petitioner (cf. Drabek v Drabek, supra ). The notice of appeal refers only to the order of March 31, 1983 which granted visitation to petitioner and counsel fees to respondent in the Family Court proceeding. Consequently, the order of August 8,1983 granting counsel fees to respondent on this appeal is not properly before us (CPLR 5526; Boylan v Health Ins. Plan, 74 AD2d 835). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Sedita, J. — visitation, counsel fees.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Moule, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The record supports the imposition of the condition in the order of visitation (see Matter of Darlene T., 28 NY2d 391, 395; Bunim v Bunim, 298 NY 391, 393). Additionally, considering the relative assets of the parties (see Matter of McDonald v McDonald, 94 AD2d 856; Drabek v Drabek, 92 AD2d 722), the court did not abuse its broad discretion under subdivision (a) of section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law in awarding respondent $3,470 for attorney’s fees incurred in defending the proceeding brought by petitioner (cf. Drabek v Drabek, supra ). The notice of appeal refers only to the order of March 31, 1983 which granted visitation to petitioner and counsel fees to respondent in the Family Court proceeding. Consequently, the order of August 8,1983 granting counsel fees to respondent on this appeal is not properly before us (CPLR 5526; Boylan v Health Ins. Plan, 74 AD2d 835). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Sedita, J. — visitation, counsel fees.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 726, 473 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-k-m-v-anita-m-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack