From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stephens v. Stephens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 28, 1998
249 A.D.2d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

In Stephens, the Appellate Division cited only to Rotta as authority for its ruling that the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it appointed a Law Guardian for the parties' children, and directed the parents to pay the Law Guardian's fees.

Summary of this case from People ex rel. KM v. SF

Opinion

April 28, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.).


Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered March 20, 1997, which, in a matrimonial action, insofar as appealed from, granted nonparty respondent Law Guardian's application for entry of judgment in her favor and against plaintiff in the amount of $7,524 for her fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Both plaintiffs failed to raise any of the arguments now advanced on appeal, and they are therefore unpreserved for review ( see, Melahn v. Hearn, 60 N.Y.2d 944, 945). Were we to review them, we would find that both motion courts properly exercised their discretion in appointing a Law Guardian for the parties' children, and directing that the parties pay the Guardian's fee ( see, Rotta v. Rotta, 233 A.D.2d 152). The motion courts were not constrained to award the statutory rates set forth in Judiciary Law § 35 (3) and the amounts awarded are appropriate ( ibid.). Further, the Law Guardian could seek to enforce payment of her fees through Domestic Relations Law § 244, rather than by plenary action.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Stephens v. Stephens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 28, 1998
249 A.D.2d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

In Stephens, the Appellate Division cited only to Rotta as authority for its ruling that the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it appointed a Law Guardian for the parties' children, and directed the parents to pay the Law Guardian's fees.

Summary of this case from People ex rel. KM v. SF
Case details for

Stephens v. Stephens

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD M. STEPHENS, Appellant, v. ALICE S. STEPHENS, Defendant. JO A…

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

Date published: Apr 28, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 268

Citing Cases

Rupp-Elmasri v. Elmasri

In doing so, the Supreme Court did not violate the doctrine of the law of the case ( see Latture v. Smith,…

People ex rel. KM v. SF

Neither that subdivision of Judiciary Law § 35, nor any other statute, explicitly provides for the imposition…