Legal Opinion
Winkelman v. Furey
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 21, 2001PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in granting respondent’s motion and awarding respondent counsel fees in this contested custody proceeding (see, Matter of O’Neil v O’Neil, 193 AD2d 16, 19-20). The Judicial Hearing Officer to whom the custody trial was referred refused to entertain respondent’s application for counsel fees and directed respondent to seek such fees from the Family Court Judge. Thus, we conclude that the court retained jurisdiction to entertain the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Morrissey v. MorrisseyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- O'Neil v. O'NeilAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Buono v. FantaconeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Hunt v. HuntAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Smith v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Schmitt v. SchmittAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Johnner v. MimsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Edelstein v. GreismanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Petosa v. PetosaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Schmitt v. SchmittAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013