Bobick v. Bobick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bobick v. Bobick

51 A.D.2d 989, 381 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11733

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 989 (Bobick v. Bobick) 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

Bobick v. Bobick, 51 A.D.2d 989, 381 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for arrears in support payments and to compel defendant to comply with the terms of a foreign divorce decree, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 7, 1975, as denied her motion for a counsel fee on defendant’s appeal from a prior order, which order, inter alia, directed him to produce the material sought by plaintiff in her notice of discovery and inspection. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to a further application for the same relief after the action is finally determined. Under the circumstances herein, we believe that Special Term properly exercised its discretion in declining to award counsel fees pendente lite for an appeal involving a question of procedural relief. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Christ and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for arrears in support payments and to compel defendant to comply with the terms of a foreign divorce decree, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 7, 1975, as denied her motion for a counsel fee on defendant’s appeal from a prior order, which order, inter alia, directed him to produce the material sought by plaintiff in her notice of discovery and inspection. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to a further application for the same relief after the action is finally determined. Under the circumstances herein, we believe that Special Term properly exercised its discretion in declining to award counsel fees pendente lite for an appeal involving a question of procedural relief. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Christ and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 989, 381 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobick-v-bobick-nyappdiv-1976.