From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

D'Amato v. D'Amato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1993
198 A.D.2d 255 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

November 8, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).


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

The parties were divorced in 1979. The mother was granted custody of the children. In May 1988 the parties' last unemancipated child went to live with her father, the defendant. By order dated May 16, 1989, custody of that child was transferred to the defendant.

Contrary to the plaintiff's assertion, we find that the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff should pay $77 per week to the defendant for child support. The defendant's request for an award of child support was appropriate, since the addition of the child to the father's household constituted a material change of circumstances (see, Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 A.D.2d 97; see, Levy v Levy, 143 A.D.2d 975). Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly applied the Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter CSSA) in determining the amount of child support. It has been recognized that in light of the paramount interests of children, the need for support, and because the CSSA represents important public policy, the CSSA should be applied to matters which were commenced prior to the effective date of the act, but which, as in the instant case, had not yet been fully decided (see, Matter of Fetherston v Fetherston, 172 A.D.2d 831).

In addition, we find that the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to counsel fees. It is well settled that an award of counsel fees lies in the discretion of the court (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; O'Brien v O'Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576; Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481). The issue of counsel fees is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case. The determination of the Supreme Court was appropriate based upon the relative merits of the parties' legal positions and their respective financial positions (see, Hackett v Hackett, 147 A.D.2d 611; Amodio v Amodio, 122 A.D.2d 757, affd 70 N.Y.2d 5). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

D'Amato v. D'Amato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1993
198 A.D.2d 255 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

D'Amato v. D'Amato

Case Details

Full title:ANN D'AMATO, Appellant, v. LOUIS D'AMATO, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 8, 1993

Citations

198 A.D.2d 255 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
603 N.Y.S.2d 872

Citing Cases

Mesholam v. Mesholam

We also conclude that the Supreme Court's award of counsel fees to the wife was an improvident exercise of…

Daddino v. Daddino

The record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff was entitled to a 40% share of the…