From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Witter v. Daire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 8, 2011
81 A.D.3d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2010-00352.

February 8, 2011.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered November 30, 2009, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an award of an attorney's fee pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Grimes Zimet, Chappaqua, N.Y. (John J. Grimes of counsel), for appellant.

Bodnar Milone, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (David Elbaum of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., Rivera, Lott and Miller, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an award of an attorney's fee pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 is denied.

It is not clear from the record that the failure of the defendant's counsel to turn over certain documents to the plaintiffs counsel was "frivolous" within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c). Indeed, the Supreme Court did not find that either the defendant or his attorney acted purposefully, but rather characterized the conduct in question as an "error." Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the award of an attorney's fee in the sum of $7,713.75 to the plaintiff pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130 was not warranted.


Summaries of

Witter v. Daire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 8, 2011
81 A.D.3d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Witter v. Daire

Case Details

Full title:SIDNEY WALDON WITTER, Respondent, v. MOURAD DAIRE, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 8, 2011

Citations

81 A.D.3d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 1019
916 N.Y.S.2d 524

Citing Cases

Onetti v. Gatsby Condo.

Furthermore, the Onettis have not demonstrated that the Snitow defendants' conduct was intended to delay this…