Winkelman v. Furey

765 N.E.2d 851, 97 N.Y.2d 711, 739 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2002 N.Y. LEXIS 149
New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 7, 2002·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. The issue whether the Appellate Division properly affirmed Family Court’s award of counsel fees to respondent is now moot. The only issue before us is whether appellant’s request for sanctions below was properly denied. On this record, we cannot say as a matter of law that the denial of appellant’s request for sanctions was an abuse of discretion (see generally, Parks v Leahey & Johnson, 81 NY2d 161, 165 [1993]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

Winkelman v. Furey, 765 N.E.2d 851, 97 N.Y.2d 711, 739 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2002 N.Y. LEXIS 149 (N.Y. 2002).

765 N.E.2d 851 (Winkelman v. Furey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

SCHMITT, GERALD v. SCHMITT, SANDRA
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Schmitt v. Schmitt
107 A.D.3d 1529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Edelstein v. Greisman
67 A.D.3d 796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Petosa v. Petosa
56 A.D.2d 1296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Johnner v. Mims
48 A.D.3d 1104 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Orner v. Mount Sinai Hospital
305 A.D.2d 307 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)