From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rupp-Elmasri v. Elmasri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 2004
8 A.D.3d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

1999-08517, 2001-07668.

Decided June 14, 2004.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated August 9, 1999, which granted the Law Guardian's motion for legal fees in the sum of $17,542.34 and directed him to pay one-half of that sum, and (2) an order of the same court (Kent, J.) dated July 16, 2001, which, after a hearing, awarded the Law Guardian legal fees in the sum of $8,260 and directed him to pay one-half of that sum.

Mohamed Elmasri, Patchogue, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Donna England, Centereach, N.Y., Law Guardian, nonparty-respondent pro se.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P. MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, SONDRA MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 9, 1999, is dismissed, because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of a judgment dated September 12, 2001, upon the order; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated July 16, 2001, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the Law Guardian payable by the appellant.

Although we have the authority in our "discretion, when the interests of justice so demand" to treat the notice of appeal from the order dated August 9, 1999, as a premature notice of appeal from the judgment dated September 12, 2001 (CPLR 5520[c]; see Scott v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 133 A.D.2d 76, 77; Siegel, N.Y. Prac § 524, at 855 [3d ed]; cf. 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]), we decline to do so under the circumstances of this case.

With respect to the order dated July 16, 2001, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in requiring the defendant husband to pay one-half of the Law Guardian's fees ( see Pascarelli v. Pascarelli, 283 A.D.2d 472; Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum, 270 A.D.2d 242; Petek v. Petek, 239 A.D.2d 327, 329; Cilento v. Cilento, 225 A.D.2d 648; Hughes v. Hughes, 224 A.D.2d 389) . In doing so, the Supreme Court did not violate the doctrine of the law of the case ( see Latture v. Smith, 304 A.D.2d 534, 535; Kennedy v. Children's Hosp. of Buffalo, 303 A.D.2d 937; Brothers v. Bunkoff Gen. Contrs., 296 A.D.2d 764, 765; Matter of Rappaport, 150 A.D.2d 779, 780). Moreover, the amount of fees awarded to the Law Guardian was appropriate, particularly since a hearing was held ( see Stephens v. Stephens, 249 A.D.2d 191; Rotta v. Rotta, 233 A.D.2d 152).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, S. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rupp-Elmasri v. Elmasri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 2004
8 A.D.3d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Rupp-Elmasri v. Elmasri

Case Details

Full title:COLEEN RUPP-ELMASRI, plaintiff, v. MOHAMED ELMASRI, appellant; DONNA…

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

Date published: Jun 14, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 289

Citing Cases

Young v. Young

The father in this custody proceeding argues that the Family Court erred in directing him to pay half of the…

Ringel v. 11 Wooleys Lane Hous. Corp.

Under the circumstances presented, this court declines to exercise its discretion to deem the notice of…