Abelson v. Abelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abelson v. Abelson

19 A.D.2d 840, 245 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3067

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 28, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 840 (Abelson v. Abelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abelson v. Abelson, 19 A.D.2d 840, 245 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to declare: (a) that a Mexican divorce decree obtained by defendant Max M. Abelson is invalid; (b) that his subsequent marriage to defendant Clune is void; and (e) that plaintiff is his lawful wife, the said defendant Abelson appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 25, 1963, which granted plaintiff’s motion for counsel fees and awarded her the sum of $750. Order modified by reducing the counsel fee to $500. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, under all the circumstances the sum allowed by Special Term was excessive to the extent indicated. [For related appeals: see Abelson v. Abelson, 19 A D 2d 840; Abelson v. Abelson, 14 A D 2d 786.] Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to declare: (a) that a Mexican divorce decree obtained by defendant Max M. Abelson is invalid; (b) that his subsequent marriage to defendant Clune is void; and (e) that plaintiff is his lawful wife, the said defendant Abelson appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 25, 1963, which granted plaintiff’s motion for counsel fees and awarded her the sum of $750. Order modified by reducing the counsel fee to $500. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, under all the circumstances the sum allowed by Special Term was excessive to the extent indicated. [For related appeals: see Abelson v. Abelson, 19 A D 2d 840; Abelson v. Abelson, 14 A D 2d 786.] Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 840, 245 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abelson-v-abelson-nyappdiv-1963.