You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE CAN PROPERLY AWARD COUNSEL FEES TO PETITIONER BASED...
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE CAN PROPERLY AWARD COUNSEL FEES TO PETITIONER BASED UPON RESPONDENT’S VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION, A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the judge properly exercised discretion in awarding counsel fees to petitioner based upon appellant’s (Gorish’s) violation of an order of protection. However, the amount of counsel fees should have been determined by a hearing:

Under Family Court Act § 846-a, the court “may order the respondent to pay the petitioner’s reasonable and necessary counsel fees in connection with the violation petition where the court finds that the violation of its order was willful.” “The award of counsel fees is committed to the discretion of the Family Court” … . “[T]he reasonable amount and nature of the claimed services must be established at an adversarial hearing” … . Here, while the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding counsel fees to the petitioner, the court erred in determining the amount of the counsel fees without a hearing. Matter of Sicina v Gorish, 2022 NY Slip Op 05535, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: The violation of an order of protection is a proper ground for awarding counsel fees to the petitioner, but the amount must be determined by a hearing.

 

You might also like
MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY AWARDING HER SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
Intentional Conduct Cannot Be the Basis for a Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action
VIDEO SHOWED ELEVATOR DOORS OPERATED PROPERLY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY FROM DOORS CLOSING ON HER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO HOTEL AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY (SECOND DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS, HOWEVER, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF IS THE LESS-MONIED SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE DOG WAS A GUARD DOG AND THE NATURE OF THE ATTACK AND INJURIES RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE (SECOND DEPT)
FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER PROTECTION.
​ PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS; THE ONE-STEP RISER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT A STRUCTURAL ELEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVEN THOUGH FATHER REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH AN INVESTIGATION RELATED TO HIS... DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON THE GROUND HE WAS...