What did the court decide?

The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's order and vacated the $18,000 fee award and the $250 fine against the petitioner.

Who is affected by this decision?

The immediate parties are petitioner Tamra J. Werner and respondent Kraig H. Kenney; the respondent will no longer receive the vacated fee award or fine.

Because the appellate court vacated the award and fine, there is no fee or fine to enforce; the case record does not indicate further proceedings required from this decision.

Can this decision be appealed further?

A further appeal to the Court of Appeals may be possible but would depend on whether leave to appeal is sought and granted under New York appellate rules.

Matter of Werner v. Kenney

Docket 226 CAF 25-00301

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

FamilyReversed

Filed: May 1, 2026 · 5 days ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Family
Disposition: Reversed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02755
Docket: 226 CAF 25-00301

Appeal from a Family Court order in a proceeding under Family Court Act article 6 directing petitioner to pay respondent legal fees and a fine

Summary

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed a Family Court order that had required petitioner Tamra J. Werner to pay respondent Kraig H. Kenney $18,000 in legal fees and expenses and to pay a $250 fine. The appeal challenged a December 17, 2024 Family Court decision in a proceeding under Family Court Act article 6. The appellate court unanimously found error in law and vacated both the monetary award and the fine, remanding nothing and awarding no costs.

Issues Decided

Whether the Family Court properly awarded $18,000 in legal fees and expenses to the respondent in a Family Court Act article 6 proceeding
Whether the Family Court properly imposed a $250 fine on the petitioner

Court's Reasoning

The appellate court concluded the challenged award and fine were not legally supportable under the applicable law governing Family Court Act article 6 proceedings. Because the order was erroneous as a matter of law, the court unanimously reversed and vacated both the monetary award and the fine. The decision relied on the court's legal review rather than factual reweighing, resulting in reversal without costs.

Parties

Petitioner: Tamra J. Werner
Respondent: Kraig H. Kenney
Attorney: Inclima Law Firm, PLLC (Charles P. Inclima, of counsel)
Attorney: Joan De R. O'Byrne
Attorney: Michael Steinberg
Attorney: Scott A. Otis (Attorney for the Child)
Judge: Stacey Romeo

Key Dates

Family Court order date: 2024-12-17
Appellate Division decision date: 2026-05-01

What You Should Do Next

1
Confirm enforcement status
Parties should confirm with Family Court and counsel that the vacated award and fine are no longer being enforced or collected in accordance with the Appellate Division decision.
2
Consider seeking further review
If a party wishes to pursue the matter further, consult appellate counsel promptly about seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and about applicable deadlines.
3
Update client and case files
Counsel for both parties should notify their clients of the reversal, update records, and close any docket matters related to the vacated award and fine.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's order and vacated the $18,000 fee award and the $250 fine against the petitioner.
Who is affected by this decision?: The immediate parties are petitioner Tamra J. Werner and respondent Kraig H. Kenney; the respondent will no longer receive the vacated fee award or fine.
What happens next?: Because the appellate court vacated the award and fine, there is no fee or fine to enforce; the case record does not indicate further proceedings required from this decision.
Can this decision be appealed further?: A further appeal to the Court of Appeals may be possible but would depend on whether leave to appeal is sought and granted under New York appellate rules.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of Werner v Kenney - 2026 NY Slip Op 02755

Matter of Werner v Kenney

2026 NY Slip Op 02755

May 1, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

IN THE MATTER OF TAMRA J. WERNER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

v

KRAIG H. KENNEY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on May 1, 2026

226 CAF 25-00301

Present: Lindley, J.P., Curran, Ogden, Delconte, And Hannah, JJ.

INCLIMA LAW FIRM, PLLC, ROCHESTER (CHARLES P. INCLIMA OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

JOAN DE R. O'BYRNE, ROCHESTER, MICHAEL STEINBERG, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

SCOTT A. OTIS, WATERTOWN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Stacey Romeo, J.), entered December 17, 2024, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order directed petitioner to pay respondent $18,000 for legal fees and expenses, plus a fine of $250.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the fine and award of legal fees and expenses are vacated.

Same memorandum as in
Matter of Werner v Kenney
([appeal No. 1] — AD3d — [May 1, 2026] [4th Dept 2026]).

Entered: May 1, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn