Bungay v. Morin
In the Matter of Henry R. Bungay, IV v. Diane L. Morin
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
—In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), entered November 18, 1997, as directed him,to pay one-half of the legal fee of the Law Guardian for the children.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Under the circumstances presented here, the Family Court’s *463 apportionment of the Law Guardian’s fee was not improper (see, Petek v Petek, 239 AD2d 327 ; Cilento v Cilento, 225 AD2d 648 ; Hughes v Hughes, 224 AD2d 389 ). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.