From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zeitlin v. Zeitlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 4, 1998
250 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 4, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Connell, J.).


Ordered that the motion is granted, and the appeal from the order dated March 11, 1997, is dismissed as withdrawn, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 9, 1997, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

In determining the award of counsel fees to the plaintiff former wife in the divorce action, the Supreme Court erred in including several charges attributed to services rendered by the attorney in the related partition action (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Lucci v. Lucci, 227 A.D.2d 387; Silverman v. Silverman, 91 A.D.2d 609; Weseley v. Weseley, 58 A.D.2d 829) and in Family Court proceedings (see, Maloney v. Maloney, 114 A.D.2d 440; Mattana v. Mattana, 79 A.D.2d 702; Murena v. Murena, 75 A.D.2d 640), as well as counsel fees incurred as a result of making the application for an award of counsel fees (see, Matter of Rocchio v. Centrum Constr. Corp., 201 A.D.2d 568; Harkavy v. Harkavy, 167 A.D.2d 510; Schussler v. Schussler, 123 A.D.2d 618). Inasmuch as the exact number of hours attributable to these improper charges is unclear, we remit the matter for a recalculation of the proper fees to be awarded, and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment. The court's new determination should take into account a misstatement contained in the April 9, 1997, order that the plaintiff had paid her former attorney Charles S. Sherman, $14,000. In fact, the plaintiff paid Mr. Sherman $11,500 while the defendant paid $2,500.

We note that the award of counsel fees in the amended judgment, may, in the court's discretion and as justice requires, be made payable directly to Charles S. Sherman (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Zeitlin v. Zeitlin, 250 A.D.2d 607 [decided herewith]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Zeitlin v. Zeitlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 4, 1998
250 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Zeitlin v. Zeitlin

Case Details

Full title:ROCHELLE ZEITLIN, Respondent, v. EDWARD ZEITLIN, Appellant. (Action No…

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

Date published: May 4, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 748

Citing Cases

Wei v. Mathews

However, the billing records and other evidence submitted by the mother in support of her motion were…

Zeitlin v. Zeitlin

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Connell, J.). Ordered that the order dated September 22,…