Matter of Alice D. (Lupoli)

Matter of Alice D. (Lupoli) 2013 NY Slip Op 00082 Decided on January 9, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department 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.

Decided on January 9, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2011-02441
(Index No. 5920/01)

[*1]In the Matter of Alice D. (Anonymous).

and

Matthew M. Lupoli, as guardian of the person and property of Alice D. (Anonymous); Edward G. Bailey, nonparty-appellant; George Brucker, nonparty-respondent.




Bailey & Sherman, P.C., Douglaston, N.Y. (Anthony V. Gentile
and Edward G. Bailey, pro se, of counsel), for nonparty-appellant.
Joseph V. DiBlasi, New York, N.Y., for nonparty-respondent (no
brief filed).
Peter M. Redmond, Bayside, N.Y., for Matthew M. Lupoli, as
guardian of the person and property of
Alice D.


DECISION & ORDER

In a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, nonparty Edward G. Bailey appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated December 28, 2010, which granted the motion of nonparty George Brucker for "reimbursement of legal fee[s]" incurred by George Brucker in defending an action entitled Smallwood v Lupoli, commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Case No. 04-CV-686, and directed him to personally pay George Brucker the sum of $16,000 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs payable by the nonparty-respondent, and the motion of George Brucker for "reimbursement of legal fee[s]" incurred in defending the federal action is denied.

The Supreme Court was without authority to grant the motion of George Brucker, made in the instant guardianship proceeding in which he is not a party, for "reimbursement of legal fee[s]" incurred in defending a federal action, as the federal action was not "before the court" within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion.
DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court