Adler v. Hickman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adler v. Hickman

41 A.D.2d 673, 340 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5034

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 673 (Adler v. Hickman) 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

Adler v. Hickman, 41 A.D.2d 673, 340 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a" proceeding pursuant to "article 4 of the .Family. Court Act by-respondent’s former husband to delete-the support provisions of a Mexican judgment which divorced the parties, petitioner appeals from an order' of the Family Court,. Suffolk :County, dated June -12, 1972, which (a) denied "the application and (b) granted respondent’s attorney a counsel fee of $250. Order modified, on the facts, by striking from the. final' sentence of the decretal paragraph thereof the words “direct to the attorney for the respondent”- and substituting therefor -the words “directly to respondent”. As so modified, order [674]*674affirmed, without costs.- It is clear on this record, that the.fee arrangement, entered into between respondent and her attorney was .such; that any award of counsel fees .was'to. be payable; directly to respondent.. Hopkins,'Acting P.: J., Gulotta, Christy Brennan arid.'Benjanun,:"JJ.,.concur..-. " , .

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

In a" proceeding pursuant to "article 4 of the .Family. Court Act by-respondent’s former husband to delete-the support provisions of a Mexican judgment which divorced the parties, petitioner appeals from an order' of the Family Court,. Suffolk :County, dated June -12, 1972, which (a) denied "the application and (b) granted respondent’s attorney a counsel fee of $250. Order modified, on the facts, by striking from the. final' sentence of the decretal paragraph thereof the words “direct to the attorney for the respondent”- and substituting therefor -the words “directly to respondent”. As so modified, order [674]*674affirmed, without costs.- It is clear on this record, that the.fee arrangement, entered into between respondent and her attorney was .such; that any award of counsel fees .was'to. be payable; directly to respondent.. Hopkins,'Acting P.: J., Gulotta, Christy Brennan arid.'Benjanun,:"JJ.,.concur..-. " , .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 673, 340 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adler-v-hickman-nyappdiv-1973.