Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Winkelman v. Furey 97 N.Y.2d 711

← Cases

Winkelman v. Furey

97 N.Y.2d 711 Court N.Y. Decision date 2002-02-07 English

Contents

Majority

p. 711
[765 NE2d 851, 739 NYS2d 355]
In the Matter of Jeffrey M. Winkelman, Appellant, v Kelly A. Furey, Respondent.
Decided February 7, 2002
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Siegel, Kelleher & Khan, Buffalo (Brian R. Welsh of counsel), for appellant.
p. 712
No submission for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. The issue whether the Appellate Division properly affirmed Family Court’s award of counsel fees to respondent is now moot. The only issue before us is whether appellant’s request for sanctions below was properly denied. On this record, we cannot say as a matter of law that the denial of appellant’s request for sanctions was an abuse of discretion (see generally, Parks v Leahey & Johnson, 81 NY2d 161 , 165 [1993]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cases cited