Matter of Nucci v. Jonckers

Matter of Nucci v Jonckers 2026 NY Slip Op 05539 September 30, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Michelle Lauren Nucci, respondent, v Anthony Vincent Jonckers, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on September 30, 2026 2025-02013, (Docket No. F-2928-23/23A) Mark C. Dillon, J.P. Linda Christopher Barry E. Warhit Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ. Michael W. Holland, Williston Park, NY, for appellant. [*1] DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Joy M. Watson, J.), dated January 14, 2025. The order denied the father's objections to (1) an order of the same court (Lisa Williams, S.M.) dated October 25, 2024, inter alia, granting that branch of the mother's motion which was pursuant to Family Court Act § 438 for an award of attorneys' fees in the principal sum of $13,950, and (2) an order of the same court also dated October 25, 2024, directing the entry of a money judgment in favor of the mother and against the father in the principal sum of $13,950. ORDERED that the order dated January 14, 2025, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 to enforce a provision of the parties' stipulation of settlement, which required the father to pay his pro rata share of certain extracurricular and educational expenses incurred on behalf of the parties' children. After a hearing, in an order dated April 5, 2024, a Support Magistrate granted the mother's petition. In May 2024, the mother moved, inter alia, pursuant to Family Court Act § 438 for an award of attorneys' fees in the principal sum of $13,950. The father opposed the motion. In an order dated October 25, 2024, the Support Magistrate, among other things, granted that branch of the mother's motion. In a separate order also dated October 25, 2024, the Support Magistrate directed the entry of a money judgment in favor of the mother and against the father in the principal sum of $13,950. The father filed objections to both orders. In an order dated January 14, 2025, the Family Court denied the father's objections. The father appeals. The Family Court may allow the payment of attorneys' fees to the attorney representing the petitioner at any stage of a proceeding to modify or enforce an order (see Family Ct Act § 438[a]; Matter of Lucana v Lawton, 233 AD3d 783, 784). Absent a finding that nonpayment was willful, an award of attorneys' fees is a matter left to the sound discretion of the court (see Matter of Lucana v Lawton, 233 AD3d at 784). Factors to be considered in computing an appropriate award of an attorney's fee include the parties' ability to pay, the nature and extent of the services rendered, the complexity of the issues involved, and the reasonableness of the fees under all of the circumstances (see Matter of Martucci v Nerone, 227 AD3d 720, 721). Ultimately, the award should be based upon the totality of the circumstances, including the equities and [*2]circumstances of each particular case (see Matter of Lucana v Lawton, 233 AD3d at 784). Here, the Support Magistrate providently exercised her discretion in granting that branch of the mother's motion which was pursuant to Family Court Act § 438 for an award of attorneys' fees in the principal sum of $13,950 and directing the entry of a money judgment in favor of the mother and against the father in the principal sum of $13,950. Contrary to the father's contention, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the award of attorneys' fees (see Matter of Heintzman v Heintzman, 157 AD3d 682, 692). The mother's petition was meritorious, as the expenses for which she sought reimbursement were the type contemplated by the parties' stipulation of settlement. Moreover, the amount of attorneys' fees ultimately awarded was appropriate in light of the parties' respective financial situations and the extent of the services rendered, including the length of the hearing (see Matter of Glass v Glass, 223 AD3d 801, 802-803). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's orders. DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court