Hockenbrought v. Hockenbrought
| Decision Date | 11 April 1974 |
| Citation | 354 N.Y.S.2d 257,44 A.D.2d 767 |
| Parties | Wilbur K. HOCKENBROUGHT, Appellant, v. Natasha HOCKENBROUGHT, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Sheldon M. Markel, Buffalo, for appellant.
Gross, Shuman, Wiltse & Laub, David C. Laub, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before MARSH, P.J., and WITMER, SIMONS and GOLDMAN, JJ.
This appeal is from a Family Court order which granted defendant-respondent wife $4,500 for attorneys' fees for services alleged to have been rendered in proceedings referred to Family Court by Supreme Court in connection with a divorce action. Appellant contends that Family Court had no jurisdiction to award counsel fees pendente lite after final judgment had already been entered in the divorce action, and further that in making the award, based on the circumstances of the case, the court abused its discretion. The attorneys who represented respondent on the application for counsel fees were not respondent's attorneys at the trial of the divorce suit. At that time substituted counsel was denied counsel fees because the Trial Justice determined that the respondent 'has greater earning power than the plaintiff husband' . The judgment for the plaintiff in the divorce action was entered on July 28, 1972. Present attorneys had received $1,300 from the wife and also on August 1, 1972 secured a judgment against her for $6,050.70. Being unable at that time to satisfy the judgment, the attorneys on August 25, 1972 moved in Family Court for a hearing to review an application they had made a year earlier when they had represented the wife and which had apparently been abandoned by everyone, including the Family Court Judge. Quite apart from the legal questions involved in this matter, the record indicates that on December 6, 1973 counsel for respondent's attorneys signed a Satisfaction of Judgment which recites that the 'judgment has been wholly paid'. It would appear, therefore, from this record that the attorneys have received a total of $7,615.15 for services. Family Court's authority to award counsel fees in custody matters referred to it by Supreme Court has been clearly established. Kapzynski v. Kapzynski, 30 A.D.2d 962, 294 N.Y.S.2d 345 recognized the effect of section 651 of the Family Court Act which grants the Family Court 'the same powers possessed by the supreme court' in referred custody proceedings. By section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law these powers include the authority to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elissa F, Matter of
...for obtaining an award of counsel fees. Schussler v. Schussler, 123 A.D.2d at pp. 618-619, 506 N.Y.S.2d 774. In Hockenbrought v. Hockenbrought, 44 A.D.2d 767, 354 N.Y.S.2d 257, the Fourth Department reversed a Family Court judge's award of counsel fees in a matter which had been referred fr......
-
Reilly v. Reilly
...of Rusk County Dept. of Health & Human Resources [ Grieve ] v. Baker, 1 A.D.3d 990, 991, 767 N.Y.S.2d 345; Hockenbrought v. Hockenbrought, 44 A.D.2d 767, 354 N.Y.S.2d 257; Matter of Elissa F., 147 Misc.2d 374, 377-379, 554 N.Y.S.2d 406). The father's remaining contentions are without merit.......
-
Roscini v. Roscini
...fees previously unrequested must, therefore, be denied although legal services had been earlier rendered (see, Hockenbrought v. Hockenbrought, 44 A.D.2d 767, 354 N.Y.S.2d 257, decided April 11, 1974). However, the statute fails to contemplate legal costs intrinsic to but arising only after ......
-
Berson v. Berson
...the Family Court has authority to award counsel fees in custody proceedings initiated in the Family Court. Hockenbrought v. Hockenbrought, 44 A.D.2d 767, 354 N.Y.S.2d 257; Mouscardy v. Mouscardy, 63 A.D.2d 973, 405 N.Y.S.2d 759; Sooy v. Sooy, 101 A.D.2d 287, 475 N.Y.S.2d 920; In the Matter ......