Legal Opinion
Terranova v. Terranova
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 10, 2012PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*789Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, considering the disparity in the parties’ incomes, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in requiring the plaintiff to pay counsel fees the defendant incurred in litigating her child custody and relocation applications (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; O’Shea v O’Shea, 93 NY2d 187 [1999]; Chesner v Chesner, 95 AD3d 1252, 1253 [2012]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61, 64-65 [2008]).
However, the Supreme Court erred in awarding counsel fees to the defendant without conducting an evidentiary hearing at which the court may test the claims…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- O'Shea v. O'SheaNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Prichep v. PrichepAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Kessler v. KesslerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Nee v. NeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Chesner v. ChesnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Matter of DeCillis v. DeCillisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Levitt v. LevittAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Levitt v. LevittAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013