Colaitis v. Colaitis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colaitis v. Colaitis

256 A.D.2d 300, 681 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13170

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 300 (Colaitis v. Colaitis) 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

Colaitis v. Colaitis, 256 A.D.2d 300, 681 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), dated September 11, 1997, as awarded the defendant an attorney’s fee in the sum of $15,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in requiring the plaintiff to pay one-half of the defendant’s attorney’s fee (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879; Rice v Rice, 222 AD2d 493; Reehill v Reehill, 181 AD2d 725).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), dated September 11, 1997, as awarded the defendant an attorney’s fee in the sum of $15,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in requiring the plaintiff to pay one-half of the defendant’s attorney’s fee (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879; Rice v Rice, 222 AD2d 493; Reehill v Reehill, 181 AD2d 725).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 300, 681 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colaitis-v-colaitis-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack