Ahmed v. Ahmed
88 A.D.3d 629, 930 N.Y.2d 472
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 4, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]; Gruppuso v Caridi, 66 AD3d 838 [2009]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61 [2008]). Prudenti, EJ., Rivera, Austin and Roman, JJ, concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ahmed v. Ahmed, 88 A.D.3d 629, 930 N.Y.2d 472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
88 A.D.3d 629 (Ahmed v. Ahmed) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kaminash v. Levi
102 A.D.3d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Shroba v. Shroba
89 A.D.3d 1079 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)