Winkelman v. Furey

New York Court of Appeals

Winkelman v. Furey

765 N.E.2d 851, 97 N.Y.2d 711, 739 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2002 N.Y. LEXIS 149

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 765 N.E.2d 851 (Winkelman v. Furey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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