In re Annette B.
Opinion of the Court
— In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a succes
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court adequately explained the factors it considered and the reasons for its determination of the attorney’s fee award, in accordance with the factors set forth in Matter of Freeman (34 NY2d 1, 9 [1974]) (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.16 [f]; Matter of Audrey J.S., 34 AD3d 820, 821 [2006]; Matter of Enid B., 7 AD3d 704 [2004]; Matter of Mavis L., 285 AD2d 509, 510 [2001]). Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its broad discretion in making such an award, and we find no reason to disturb it (see Matter of Catherine K., 22 AD3d 850, 852 [2005]; Matter of Ida Q., 11 AD3d 785 [2004]).
The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Lifson, J.E, Santucci, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.