Opinion
No. 2022-01084 Docket Nos. V-24546-14 V-32250-14
01-18-2023
In the Matter of John Shumway, petitioner, v. Stacey Rosenzweig, respondent; David E. Schorr, etc., nonparty-appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Stacey Rosenzweig, petitioner-respondent, v. John Shumway, respondent; David E. Schorr, etc., nonparty-appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
David E. Schorr, New York, NY, nonparty-appellant pro se. Nangia & Kazansky, LLP, Brooklyn, NY (Matthew J. Kazansky of counsel), for respondent in Proceeding No. 1 and petitioner-respondent in Proceeding No. 2.
David E. Schorr, New York, NY, nonparty-appellant pro se.
Nangia & Kazansky, LLP, Brooklyn, NY (Matthew J. Kazansky of counsel), for respondent in Proceeding No. 1 and petitioner-respondent in Proceeding No. 2.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., BETSY BARROS, LARA J. GENOVESI, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, nonparty David E. Schorr, the father's counsel, appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Denise M. Valme-Lundy, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 4, 2022. The order, after a hearing, in effect, granted that branch of the mother's cross motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for an award of costs and attorneys' fees against nonparty David E. Schorr, and directed him to pay the sum of $7,675.30 to the mother's counsel.
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see Family Ct Act § 1112); and it is further, ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the mother's cross motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for an award of costs and attorneys' fees against nonparty David E. Schorr is denied.
The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion by, in effect, granting that branch of the mother's cross motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for an award of costs and attorneys' fees against the appellant, as the mother failed to demonstrate that the appellant's conduct was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see Matter of Salvatore L. Olivieri Irrevocable Trust Dated 9/29/1994, 208 A.D.3d 491; Matter of Apostolidis, 193 A.D.3d 1039; Rojas v Hazzard, 171 A.D.3d 819).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant's remaining contention.
DILLON, J.P., BARROS, GENOVESI and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
In the Matter of John Shumway, petitioner, v.
Stacey Rosenzweig, respondent; David E. Schorr, etc., nonparty-appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)
In the Matter of Stacey Rosenzweig, petitioner-respondent, v.
John Shumway, respondent; David E. Schorr, etc., nonparty-appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
(Docket Nos. V-24546-14, V-32250-14)
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated January 4, 2022. Motion by Stacey Rosenzweig, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was untimely taken. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated July 20, 2022, that branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was untimely taken was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was untimely taken is denied.
DILLON, J.P., BARROS, GENOVESI and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.