Broschart v. Broschart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Broschart v. Broschart

109 A.D.2d 813, 486 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47320

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.2d 813 (Broschart v. Broschart) 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

Broschart v. Broschart, 109 A.D.2d 813, 486 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action in which the defendant husband moved, inter alia, for a change in child custody, and the plaintiff wife cross-moved, inter alia, for an increase in child support, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Miller, J.), dated May 14, 1984, as awarded plaintiff $2,500 in counsel fees.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The record amply supports the amount of the counsel fees awarded to plaintiff’s attorney. We further note that the stipulation of the parties as to the manner in which the dispute over counsel fees was to be resolved, which was apparently drafted by defendant’s attorney, relieved plaintiff of the requirement of full technical compliance with 22 NYCRR 699.11. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, 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 defendant husband moved, inter alia, for a change in child custody, and the plaintiff wife cross-moved, inter alia, for an increase in child support, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Miller, J.), dated May 14, 1984, as awarded plaintiff $2,500 in counsel fees.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The record amply supports the amount of the counsel fees awarded to plaintiff’s attorney. We further note that the stipulation of the parties as to the manner in which the dispute over counsel fees was to be resolved, which was apparently drafted by defendant’s attorney, relieved plaintiff of the requirement of full technical compliance with 22 NYCRR 699.11. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 813, 486 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broschart-v-broschart-nyappdiv-1985.