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.
IN RE: Donald COOKE III, appellant, v. Kimberly A. ALAIMO, respondent.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.H.O.), dated September 27, 2006, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the mother's cross petition for leave to relocate the child to Florida and awarded her an attorney's fee in the sum of $7,500.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the mother an attorney's fee in the sum of $7,500; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's determination that relocation of the parties' child to Florida was in the best interests of the child is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 739, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145; Matter of Fegadel v. Anderson, 40 A.D.3d 1091, 836 N.Y.S.2d 694; Tornheim v. Tornheim, 28 A.D.3d 535, 816 N.Y.S.2d 88). While the father's loss of midweek and alternate weekend visitation is not insignificant, the visitation schedule allows for the continuation of a meaningful relationship between the father and the child (see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d at 727, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145; Matter of Wisloh-Silverman v. Dono, 39 A.D.3d 555, 557, 834 N.Y.S.2d 539).
However, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the mother an attorney's fee in the sum of $7,500 since neither party filed an affidavit of net worth as required by 22 NYCRR 202.16(k)(2). Thus, no fee award was warranted in this matter. Under the circumstances of this case, we do not consider it appropriate to remit this matter to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[b]; cf. Frost v. Goldberg, 31 A.D.3d 374, 818 N.Y.S.2d 533; Kane v. Rudansky, 23 A.D.3d 349, 350, 804 N.Y.S.2d 93).
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: October 02, 2007
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)