| Gottlieb v Gottlieb |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08283 [101 AD3d 678] |
| December 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Craig Gottlieb, Appellant, v Carolina Gottlieb,Respondent. |
—[*1] Ursula A. Gangemi, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of theSupreme Court, Queens County (Raffaele, J.), dated October 6, 2011, which denied his motion tomodify a prior order of the same court dated June 17, 2010, directing visitation with the parties'child to be supervised by Diane Hessman, LCSW, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so muchof an order of the same court dated October 7, 2011, as granted that branch of the defendant'smotion which was for an award of an attorney's fee to the extent of awarding her an attorney's feein the sum of $10,000.
Ordered that the order dated October 6, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements;and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated October 7, 2011, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on thelaw, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the defendant's motion which was for anaward of an attorney's fee is denied in its entirety.
The court rules imposing certain requirements upon attorneys who represent clients indomestic relations matters (see 22 NYCRR part 1400) were designed to address abuses inthe practice of matrimonial law and to protect the public (see Hovanec v Hovanec, 79 AD3d 816, 817 [2010]). Substantialcompliance with those rules is required, and such a showing must be made on a prima facie basisas part of the moving party's papers (see 22 NYCRR 1400.2, 1400.3; Hovanec vHovanec, 79 AD3d at 817; Gahaganv Gahagan, 51 AD3d 863, 864 [2008]). Here, counsel for the defendant failed toestablish, prima facie, substantial compliance with 22 NYCRR 1400.2 and 1400.3 (seeHovanec v Hovanec, 79 AD3d at 817; Bentz v Bentz, 71 AD3d 931, 932 [2010]). Accordingly, theSupreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for an awardof an attorney's fee.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to modify a prior order directingvisitation with the child to be supervised by Diane Hessman, LCSW (cf. Matter of D'Angelo v Lopez, 94AD3d 1261, 1262 [2012]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.