Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

Belle v. DeMilia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 27, 2005

19 A.D.3d 691; 798 N.Y.S.2d 104; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7320

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Coward v. Biddle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of Liebenstein v. Irani (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Ross v. Ross (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Ross v. Ross (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Baribault v. Sauvola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Baribault v. Sauvola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Dempsey v. Dempsey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Reilly v. Reilly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Edwards v. Rothschild (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Sullivan v. Sullivan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Gebaide v. Gebaide (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to modify the visitation provisions of a stipulation of settlement dated September 10, 2002, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), entered October 5, 2004, which granted the mother’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court is authorized to award an attorney’s fee in a proceeding brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to modify the visitation provisions of a stipulation of settlement that was not embodied in a court order or incorporated into a judgment of divorce. Family Court Act § 651 (b) grants the Family Court “the same powers possessed by the supreme court” in custody and visitation proceedings initiated in the Family Court. Domestic Rela*692tions Law § 237 (b) authorizes the Supreme Court to award an attorney’s fee in proceedings “concerning custody [and] visitation ... of a child” when warranted under the circumstances of the case. Since this proceeding concerns visitation of a child, the Family Court was statutorily empowered to award the mother an attorney’s fee (see Matter of O’Shea v Parker, 16 AD3d 510 [2005]; Matter of O’Neil v O’Neil, 193 AD2d 16 [1993]; see also Matter of Dowd v White, 155 AD2d 459 [1989]).

The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.