From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Theroux v. Theroux

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 15, 1985
112 A.D.2d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

July 15, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.).


Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and a new determination in accordance herewith.

Special Term based its determination, in part, on a finding that plaintiff engaged in certain needless and time-wasting legal maneuvers which precluded the need for a hearing. Upon this record, however, we cannot say that "the husband's conduct [was] so clearly obstructionistic as to warrant affirmance of the order, without remanding for an evidentiary hearing" ( Stern v Stern, 67 A.D.2d 253, 254). We therefore remit the matter for a hearing and a new determination on the issue of counsel fees, expenses, costs and disbursements ( Entwistle v. Entwistle, 92 A.D.2d 879, 880, appeal dismissed 59 N.Y.2d 966; Sadofsky v Sadofsky, 78 A.D.2d 520). Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Theroux v. Theroux

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 15, 1985
112 A.D.2d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Theroux v. Theroux

Case Details

Full title:WAYNE THEROUX, Appellant, v. MAUREEN Q. THEROUX, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 15, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Racquel L.J. v. Derwin J.J.

However, when the actions of one party are so clearly "obstructionistic," it may preclude the need for an…

Milteer v. Milteer

However, there is no evidence that the defendant acted improperly. Thus, the award of an attorney's fee to…