Contino v. Contino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Contino v. Contino

280 A.D.2d 447, 719 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1223

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 447 (Contino v. Contino) 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

Contino v. Contino, 280 A.D.2d 447, 719 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated June 29, 1977, the defendant former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), dated April 3, 2000, which granted the motion of the plaintiff former wife for leave to enter a judgment against him for arrears in alimony in the principal sum of $22,350, for an income execution order, and for an award of an attorney’s fee in the sum of $1,300.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff an attorney’s fee pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 238 (see, Stein v Sandow, 97 AD2d 838).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 dated June 29, 1977, the defendant former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), dated April 3, 2000, which granted the motion of the plaintiff former wife for leave to enter a judgment against him for arrears in alimony in the principal sum of $22,350, for an income execution order, and for an award of an attorney’s fee in the sum of $1,300.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff an attorney’s fee pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 238 (see, Stein v Sandow, 97 AD2d 838).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 447, 719 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contino-v-contino-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack