GRANT v. GRANT

2009-03127, 2009-09215

71 A.D.3d 634 (2010)

895 N.Y.S.2d 827

MICHAEL GRANT, Respondent, v. DANA GRANT, Appellant.

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

Decided March 2, 2010.


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the amended judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the amended judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

"An award of an attorney's fee pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (a) is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the issue `is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case'" (Gruppuso v Caridi, 66 A.D.3d 838, 839 [2009], quoting Morrissey v Morrissey, 259 A.D.2d 472, 473 [1999]; see Prichep v Prichep, 52 A.D.3d 61, 64-65 [2008]; Timpone v Timpone, 28 A.D.3d 646, 646 [2006]).

In this case, the judicial hearing officer providently exercised his discretion in recommending the denial of the defendant's application for an award of an attorney's fee, and the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to confirm that portion of the judicial hearing officer's report (see CPLR 4403; 22 NYCRR 202.44; Dimino v Dimino, 39 A.D.3d 799, 799-800 [2007]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Motion by the respondent on appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 2, 2009, and an amended judgment of the same court entered September 1, 2009, to dismiss the appeal from the order on the ground that the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the amended judgment. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 4, 2009, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeals for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeals, it is

Ordered that the motion is denied as academic in light of our determination of the appeals. Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases