IN RE: D.M. (2025)

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jonathan H. Shim, J.), entered on or about October 1, 2024, which determined that Family Court had jurisdiction over petitioner-mother's application for counsel fees and referred the matter for a full evidentiary hearing regarding the reasonableness of the mother's counsel fee request, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As a preliminary matter, Family Court properly addressed the mother's application for counsel fees, despite the termination of the order of protection.  Family Court is afforded “such ancillary jurisdiction as is necessary to fulfill the court's core function,” one of which is to address counsel fees connected to orders of protection (Matter of H.M. v. E.T., 14 N.Y.3d 521, 527, 904 N.Y.S.2d 285, 930 N.E.2d 206 [2010];  see also Matter of Lisa T. v. King E.T., 30 N.Y.3d 548, 69 N.Y.S.3d 236, 91 N.E.3d 1215 [2017];  Family Court Act § 842[f]).  As respondent-father's appeal from the order of protection was not moot, Family Court properly retained jurisdiction for ancillary matters (see Matter of Damineh M. v. Bedouin L.J., 225 A.D.3d 522, 208 N.Y.S.3d 132 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 903, 2024 WL 4151616 [2024]).  It is likewise well established that appellate counsel fee applications are properly brought before the trial court (see Kohn v. Kohn, 86 A.D.3d 630, 630, 928 N.Y.S.2d 55 [2d Dept. 2011];  Taft v. Taft, 135 A.D.2d 809, 810, 522 N.Y.S.2d 913 [2d Dept. 1987];  Matter of Urbach v. Krouner, 213 A.D.2d 833, 836, 623 N.Y.S.2d 380 [3d Dept. 1995]).

Under the circumstances of this case, it was not an abuse of discretion for Family Court to set the issue of the reasonableness of the mother's appellate counsel fees down for a full evidentiary hearing (see Matter of Grald v. Grald, 33 A.D.3d 922, 923, 824 N.Y.S.2d 100 [2d Dept. 2006]).  Given the possible ramifications to the mother if the fact-finding and order of protection were vacated on appeal, Family Court's decision to consider her appellate counsel fees as encompassed by Family Court Act § 842(f) was not in error.

We have considered the father's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.