Sitarek v. Sitarek

7 Citing cases

  1. Granat v. Granat

    152 A.D.3d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    CPLR 5241 was enacted to aid in the enforcement of support obligations (see Matter of Kramer v. Giannini, 2 A.D.3d 636, 768 N.Y.S.2d 351 ). While this statute inaugurated a broad expansion of the benefits available to a creditor (see Matter of Kennedy v. Kennedy, 195 A.D.2d 229, 231, 607 N.Y.S.2d 773 ), the special income execution provision of CPLR 5241 is for support obligations only (see Richard C. Reilly, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, C5241:1; see also Sitarek v. Sitarek, 179 A.D.2d 1065, 579 N.Y.S.2d 523 ). Under the particular circumstances of this case, the defendant failed to establish entitlement to the issuance of an income execution.

  2. In the Matter of Dodaro v. Beyer

    297 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 5 times

    Further, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding $2,500 in counsel fees (see Family Ct Act § 438[a]; Matter of Israel v. Israel, 273 A.D.2d 385). However, it was improper for the Family Court to order these fees to be paid as "added arrears" though the Suffolk County Support Collection Unit (see Matter of B.M. v. Z.S., 174 Misc.2d 205; see also Anostario v. Anostario, 249 A.D.2d 612; Sitarek v. Sitarek, 179 A.D.2d 1065). The mother's remaining contention is without merit.

  3. Anostario v. Anostario

    249 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 6 times

    An "[o]rder of support", as defined in CPLR 5241 (a) (1), is one "which directs the payment of alimony, maintenance, support or child support". Counsel fees are not included in this definition (see, Sitarek v. Sitarek, 179 A.D.2d 1065). We reject out of hand plaintiff's contention that the award of counsel fees "was construed by the Court as support and maintenance for her".

  4. Brody v. Brody

    196 A.D.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 2 times

    On the other hand, execution on an ordinary debt is still limited to 10% of disposable income (CPLR 5231 [b]). A distributive award is simply not enforceable by means of CPLR 5241 (or, for that matter, its judicial counterpart, CPLR 5242) (Brian Maloney, M.D., P.C. v Maloney, 140 Misc.2d 852; see also, Sitarek v Sitarek, 179 A.D.2d 1065). For purposes of enforcement, we hold this to be a conventional debt, thus limited to a maximum execution of 10% of disposable income.

  5. Torgersen v. Torgersen

    188 A.D.2d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    The affidavit of her attorney in support of the motion failed to establish that the fees, costs and disbursements were necessary, reasonable or earned. Without such a showing, any award would be inappropriate (see, Sitarek v Sitarek, 179 A.D.2d 1065, 1066; Kieffer v Kieffer, 163 A.D.2d 907, 908).

  6. Burke v. Burke

    185 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ. Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: It was error for Family Court to award respondent counsel fees in the sum of $4,500 for the anticipated costs of appeal (see, Sitarek v. Sitarek, 179 A.D.2d 1065; Kieffer v. Kieffer, 163 A.D.2d 907, 908). From our review of the record, we further find that, in light of the equities presented and the financial circumstances of the parties, the remaining counsel fee award of $3,972.90, representing approximately one-half of the total fees requested, is a just award of counsel fees to defend the prior appeal. The order of Family Court is, therefore, modified to direct petitioner to contribute $3,972.

  7. Cardo-Racolin v. Racolin

    163 Misc. 2d 853 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994)   Cited 1 times

    That section provides in part: "Where a spouse in an action for divorce * * * defaults in paying any sum of money as required by the judgment or order directing the payment thereof * * * such direction shall be enforceable pursuant to [CPLR 5241 or 5242]". That language, which is almost identical to that in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (9) (a), has been held to preclude resort to CPLR 5241 and 5242 PLR for any orders except for the payment of support (see, Sitarek v Sitarek, 179 A.D.2d 1065; Brian Maloney, M.D., P.C. v Maloney, 140 Misc.2d 852, 856).