Ahearn v. Ahearn

CourtNew York City Court
Writing for the CourtHOROWITZ
Citation4 Misc.2d 1043,158 N.Y.S.2d 848
PartiesPatricia AHEARN, Petitioner, v. David E. AHEARN, Respondent.
Decision Date28 January 1957

Page 848

158 N.Y.S.2d 848
4 Misc.2d 1043
Patricia AHEARN, Petitioner,
v.
David E. AHEARN, Respondent.
Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Family
Court Division, Queens County.
Jan. 28, 1957.

Page 849

[4 Misc.2d 1044] Hyman Bravin, New York City, for petitioner.

Taks & Bishop, Jamaica, Sydney H. Bishop, Jamaica, of counsel, for respondent.

HOROWITZ, Justice.

This is an application by petitioner's attorney for an allowance of counsel fees pursuant to Section 131 of the Domestic Relations Court Act.

Page 850

From the facts herein it appears that petitioner-wife instituted a proceeding against the respondent-husband for support for herself and their child. After a full trial of the issues, the Court on September 25, 1956 entered an order of support on a means basis for petitioner and the child. At the conclusion of that proceeding petitioner's attorney made an application to the Court for an allowance of counsel fees and the same was granted and an order accordingly entered.

On December 7, 1956 respondent applied to the Court for a rehearing or modification of the support order originally made. The Court denied the motion for a rehearing of the entire proceeding but granted a hearing on the question of modification. This hearing was duly held and several hours of testimony taken in behalf of both parties. The amount of the original order was reduced by the Court with specific allocation being made for payment of the amount of support so ordered separately to the petitioner and to the child.

The present application by petitioner's attorney for an allowance of counsel fees pursuant to Section 131 of the Domestic Relations Court Act is predicated on legal services rendered to petitioner in opposing respondent's application for modification of the original support order.

A support order in the Domestic Relations Court, Family Division, is never permanent but is always subject to modification on proof of changed circumstances, requiring an adjustment of an existing support order.

Under subdivision (16) of Section 92 of the Domestic Relations Court Act, the Family Division of the Court has the power to modify, change or vacate any order that it makes as justice may require and as the premises warrant. It may change its original support order to meet new conditions. Vendetti v. Vendetti, Dom.Rel., 31 N.Y.S.2d 487, 495; Fenelle v. Fenelle, 183 Misc. 123, 46 N.Y.S.2d 776, 778. That was the disposition of the Court in the instant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Proceeding for Support Under Article 4 of Family Court Act, Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Family Court
    • 18 Febrero 1976
    ...Prior to that time, no statutory language existed which authorized the Family Court to award counsel fees. As stated in Ahearn v. Ahearn, 4 Misc.2d 1043, 158 N.Y.S.2d 848, '(U)ntil . . . September 1, 1956 . . . services performed by attorneys in a Family Court proceeding for the support of ......
  • Steingesser, Matter of, No. 820
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 20 Junio 1979
    ...Dravecka v. Richard, 267 N.Y. 180, 182, 196 N.E. 17 (1935); Elder v. Rosenwasser, 238 N.Y. 427, 144 N.E. 669 (1924); Ahearn v. Ahearn, 4 Misc.2d 1043, 158 N.Y.S.2d 848 (Fam.Ct.1957); Brodsky v. Fouhy, 197 Misc. 296, 94 N.Y.S.2d 626 (Civ.Ct.N.Y.1949). Attorney's fees in connection with a sep......
  • Anonymous v. Anonymous
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • 29 Julio 1963
    ...438 of the Family Court Act is not broad enough to include counsel fees, prospective, past or present, on appeals. In Ahearn v. Ahearn, 4 Misc.2d 1043, 158 N.Y.S.2d 848, Judge Horowitz of this Court disallowed an application for counsel fees where they were requested by the wife's attorney ......
  • Pennsylvania Exchange Bank v. Lasko
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 30 Enero 1957
    ...plaintiff's cause of action as pleaded, that the present complaint is sufficient. For there is no allegation of demand by the discount[4 Misc.2d 1043] company upon the defendant to repurchase; there is no allegation of damage incurred by the discount company; and there is no allegation of a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Proceeding for Support Under Article 4 of Family Court Act, Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Family Court
    • 18 Febrero 1976
    ...Prior to that time, no statutory language existed which authorized the Family Court to award counsel fees. As stated in Ahearn v. Ahearn, 4 Misc.2d 1043, 158 N.Y.S.2d 848, '(U)ntil . . . September 1, 1956 . . . services performed by attorneys in a Family Court proceeding for the support of ......
  • Steingesser, Matter of, No. 820
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 20 Junio 1979
    ...Dravecka v. Richard, 267 N.Y. 180, 182, 196 N.E. 17 (1935); Elder v. Rosenwasser, 238 N.Y. 427, 144 N.E. 669 (1924); Ahearn v. Ahearn, 4 Misc.2d 1043, 158 N.Y.S.2d 848 (Fam.Ct.1957); Brodsky v. Fouhy, 197 Misc. 296, 94 N.Y.S.2d 626 (Civ.Ct.N.Y.1949). Attorney's fees in connection with a sep......
  • Anonymous v. Anonymous
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • 29 Julio 1963
    ...438 of the Family Court Act is not broad enough to include counsel fees, prospective, past or present, on appeals. In Ahearn v. Ahearn, 4 Misc.2d 1043, 158 N.Y.S.2d 848, Judge Horowitz of this Court disallowed an application for counsel fees where they were requested by the wife's attorney ......
  • Pennsylvania Exchange Bank v. Lasko
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 30 Enero 1957
    ...plaintiff's cause of action as pleaded, that the present complaint is sufficient. For there is no allegation of demand by the discount[4 Misc.2d 1043] company upon the defendant to repurchase; there is no allegation of damage incurred by the discount company; and there is no allegation of a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT