Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ragone v. Ragone

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


May 12, 2009

PHILIP RAGONE, RESPONDENT,
v.
MARIA KONOPKA RAGONE, APPELLANT.

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ross, J.), entered February 6, 2008, as directed her to pay 100% of the fees of a parenting coordinator appointed by the court, and (2) so much of an order of the same court entered February 28, 2008, as directed her to pay 100% of the fees of a therapist appointed by the court.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

(Index No. 201901/03)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notices of appeal are treated as applications for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the orders are reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine the parties' relative financial positions and new determinations thereafter regarding apportionment of the fees of the parenting coordinator and therapist.

The defendant contends that given the parties' financial situations, the Supreme Court erred in directing her to pay 100% of the fees of a parenting coordinator and therapist. It was error for the Supreme Court to require the defendant to pay 100% of the fees for the parenting coordinator and therapist without considering her financial status (see Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837; Klutchko v Baron, 1 AD3d 400; Domestic Relations Law § 237[d][4]). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine the parties' relative financial positions and new determinations thereafter.

MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

20090512

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.