AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges

WALTER PANEK, Respondent, v. KATHIE PANEK, NOW Known as KATHIE WENDT, Appellant.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court erred in directing defendant to pay child support retroactive to June 1991. The Domestic Relations Law provides that a direction for the payment of child support shall "be effective as of the date of the application therefor" (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [7] [a]; § 240 [1]; see, Burns v Burns, 84 NY2d 369, 377; Berge v Berge, 159 AD2d 960, 961; see also, Family Ct Act § 449). Plaintiffs application for child support was made on October 25, 1994, the date defendant was served with the cross motion ( see, Trautwein v Trautwein, 181 AD2d 1060, 1061). We modify the order, therefore, by directing that defendant's payment of child support be retroactive to October 25, 1994.

An award of counsel fees is a matter "committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which is `in a superior position to judge those factors integral to the fixing of counsel fees' ( Levine v Levine, 179 AD2d 625, 626), such as the financial circumstances of the parties, the circumstances of the case as a whole, including the relative merit of the parties' positions, and the time, effort and skill required of counsel ( see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881)" ( Silberman v Silberman, 216 AD2d 41, 41-42, appeal dismissed 86 NY2d 835). The denial of defendant's application for counsel fees was a proper exercise of the court's discretion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Child Support.)

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PANEK v. PANEK
(Sep 27, 1996)