Boger v. Boger
225 A.D.2d 646, 639 N.Y.2d 936, 639 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2632
Opinion
Contrary to the defendant husband’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding counsel fees to the plaintiff wife (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879; Brennen v Brennen, 148 AD2d 487; Cotton v Cotton, 147 AD2d 436; Stern v Stern, 67 AD2d 253). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann, Florio and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Boger v. Boger, 225 A.D.2d 646, 639 N.Y.2d 936, 639 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
225 A.D.2d 646 (Boger v. Boger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete
518 N.E.2d 1168 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
Stern v. Stern
67 A.D.2d 253 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Cotton v. Cotton
147 A.D.2d 436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Brennen v. Brennen
148 A.D.2d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)