Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JAMES W. HILL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JENNIFER V. HILL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THEODORE W. STENUF, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, MINOA, FOR MADISON H. AND KALEIGH H.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed in the interest of justice and on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for a hearing in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing before granting that part of defendant's cross motion seeking an award of counsel fees incurred in opposing plaintiff's motion seeking to modify the judgment of divorce. Although plaintiff failed to preserve that contention for our review (see Petosa v. Petosa, 56 AD3d 1296, 1298), we nevertheless review it in the interest of justice (see Redgrave v. Redgrave, 304 A.D.2d 1062, 1066-1067), and we agree with plaintiff that the court so erred (see Matter of Mina v. Weber, 309 A.D.2d 1252; Redgrave, 304 A.D.2d at 1066-1067). Absent a stipulation by the parties, “the court should base its determination [to award counsel fees] upon testimonial and other trial evidence of the financial condition of the parties” (Matter of Cook v. Jasinski, 20 AD3d 869, 870; see Mina, 309 A.D.2d 1252). Here, there is no stipulation in the record permitting the court to determine the issue of counsel fees without conducting a hearing. We therefore reverse the judgment and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing on that issue and thus to decide that part of defendant's cross motion seeking an award of counsel fees.
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CA 09-02616
Decided: June 18, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)