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.
Channah AKERMAN, respondent, v. Michael AKERMAN, appellant.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated September 26, 2005, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, J.), dated June 29, 2007, which denied that branch of his motion which was to impose a monetary sanction upon the plaintiff and her former attorney, and granted that branch of his motion which was for an award of an attorney's fee only to the extent of directing a hearing on that issue.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for an award of an attorney's fee only to the extent of directing a hearing on that issue, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
“An order which directs a judicial hearing to aid in the disposition of a motion is not appealable as of right because it does not decide the motion, and does not affect a substantial right” (D'Agnese v. Spinelli, 308 A.D.2d 561, 764 N.Y.S.2d 878; see Zoref v. Glassman, 44 A.D.3d 1036, 843 N.Y.S.2d 834; Kornblum v. Kornblum, 34 A.D.3d 749, 828 N.Y.S.2d 402; Matter of James, 5 A.D.3d 487, 772 N.Y.S.2d 558). Since leave to appeal was not sought or granted, we dismiss the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for an award of an attorney's fee only to the extent of directing a hearing on that issue.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of his motion which was to impose a monetary sanction upon the plaintiff and her former attorney. The record supports the court's conclusion that neither the plaintiff nor her former attorney engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(2) (see Arciniega v. Arciniega, 48 A.D.3d 607, 852 N.Y.S.2d 377; Tavella v. Tavella, 25 A.D.3d 523, 812 N.Y.S.2d 38; Stow v. Stow, 262 A.D.2d 550, 694 N.Y.S.2d 68).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 29, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)