Pascarelli v. Pascarelli

• Decision Date: 14 May 2001
• Citation: 724 N.Y.S.2d 636
• Parties: (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001) Nancy Pascarelli, respondent, v Richard Pascarelli, appellant. 2000-02436 : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 636

724 N.Y.S.2d 636 (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001)

Nancy Pascarelli, respondent, v Richard Pascarelli, appellant.

2000-02436

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

May 14, 2001

George Nager, Hempstead, N.Y., for appellant.

Marilyn S. Faust, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent and Robin D. Carton, Harrison, N.Y., Law Guardian, pro se (one brief filed).

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered February 15, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to continue the appointment of the Law Guardian originally made by the Family Court, Westchester County, and directed the parties to be equally responsible for past and future fees due the Law Guardian.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appointment of a Law Guardian is discretionary (see, Blauvelt v Blauvelt, 219 A.D.2d 694; Matter of Del Sordo v Maholsic, 199 A.D.2d 1038, 1039; Frizzell v Frizzell, 177 A.D.2d 825; Matter of Evans v Evans, 127 A.D.2d 998). Although custody is no longer at issue, the issue of visitation is still unresolved. Consequently, the Law Guardian's appointment was appropriate, as it will assist the Supreme Court in making its determination on that issue (see, Vecchiarelli v Vecchiarelli, 238 A.D.2d 411, 413; Holsberg v Shankman, 171 A.D.2d 1067; Koppenhoefer v Koppenhoefer, 159 A.D.2d 113, 117]).

Further, under the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court's apportionment of the Law Guardian's fee was proper (see, Rosenbaum v Rosenbaum, 270 A.D.2d 242; Matter of Bungay v Morin, 256 A.D.2d 462; Pastarnack v Pastarnack, 248 A.D.2d 604; Petek v Petek, 239 A.D.2d 327, 329; Hughes v Hughes, 224 A.D.2d 389; Cilento v Cilento, 225 A.D.2d 648; Mouscardy v Mouscardy, 63 A.D.2d 973).

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and COZIER, JJ., concur.