Case ID: misc2d_99/html/0124-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Arthur J. Abrams, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Valeria Koch, Petitioner, v Elizabeth Koch, Respondent.
    Family Court, Suffolk County,
    April 2, 1979
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Abraham Norwood for petitioner. Stuart Serota for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Arthur J. Abrams, J.

There is no authority for an award of counsel fees in a custody proceeding other than from one parent to another (Matter of Carnese v Carnese, 93 Misc 558).

Subdivision (b) of section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law, the applicable statute, provides that only a husband or father can be directed to pay counsel fees in a custody proceeding. This section was amended in 1978 and the Legislature saw fit not to alter the above-stated provision despite the fact that existing section 72 of the Domestic Relations Law gave a grandparent the right to petition for visitation of a grandchild under certain circumstances. Thus, we hold that the special financial interdependence that exists between spouses and parents that gives rise to the obligation to pay counsel fees in a custody proceeding does not exist between a mother-in-law and a daughter-in-law as in the case at bar.