From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Hootnick v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 28, 1993
193 A.D.2d 1092 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

May 28, 1993

Appeal from the Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We reject petitioner's contention that Family Court erred in dismissing his petition to terminate his child support obligation without conducting an evidentiary hearing. A hearing is not required unless the application is supported by an affidavit or other evidentiary materials sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the relief requested (Family Ct Act § 451). The relief requested by petitioner was termination of his child support obligation on the ground that his three children had abandoned him. We conclude that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of abandonment and Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

We also reject petitioner's contention that Family Court abused its discretion in directing him to pay respondent's attorney's fees in the amount of $5,000 without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Although a court should not fix the amount of counsel fees without first holding an evidentiary hearing to determine the value of those services, where one of the parties has engaged in a campaign of harassment and has been overly litigious, the court does not abuse its discretion by granting counsel fees in the absence of an evidentiary hearing based upon an appropriate affidavit (Ardito v Ardito, 97 A.D.2d 830, 831; Mulligan v Mulligan, 79 A.D.2d 721, 722, affd 54 N.Y.2d 614; Stern v Stern, 67 A.D.2d 253, 256).


Summaries of

Matter of Hootnick v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 28, 1993
193 A.D.2d 1092 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Hootnick v. Cohen

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DAVID HOOTNICK, Appellant, v. SHARI R. COHEN, Respondent…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 28, 1993

Citations

193 A.D.2d 1092 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
598 N.Y.S.2d 884

Citing Cases

Kelly v. Kelly

While the defendant would ordinarily be entitled to an evidentiary hearing with regard to the value and…

In the Matter of Mark D. Coleman v. Murphy

Indeed, the Referee was required to “conduct a hearing on [the] petition to modify a support order where the…