Box v. Box

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Box v. Box

203 A.D.2d 502, 612 N.Y.S.2d 930

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

DecidedApril 18, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 502 (Box v. Box) 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

Box v. Box, 203 A.D.2d 502, 612 N.Y.S.2d 930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered October 3, 1989, the [503]*503plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated June 22, 1992, as denied that branch of her motion which was for attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with her receivership of the defendant husband’s property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the wife’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with her appointment as receiver of the husband’s property (see, CPLR 6401 [b]). Under the circumstances of this case, the wife is entitled to no further compensation beyond the permitted statutory compensation for receivers (see, CPLR 8004 [a]). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered October 3, 1989, the [503]*503plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated June 22, 1992, as denied that branch of her motion which was for attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with her receivership of the defendant husband’s property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the wife’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with her appointment as receiver of the husband’s property (see, CPLR 6401 [b]). Under the circumstances of this case, the wife is entitled to no further compensation beyond the permitted statutory compensation for receivers (see, CPLR 8004 [a]). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 502, 612 N.Y.S.2d 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/box-v-box-nyappdiv-1994.