Du Broff v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Du Broff v. Thomas

51 A.D.2d 711, 380 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11164

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 711 (Du Broff v. Thomas) 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

Du Broff v. Thomas, 51 A.D.2d 711, 380 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 14, 1975, severing and dismissing the action as against the defendant Franklin A. Thomas, is unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to respondent Franklin A. Thomas, for the reasons stated by Justice Markowitz at Special Term. We add only that such services as are alleged to have been rendered after the fixation of fees by Justice Rubin in the Supreme Court, Kings County—fruitless applications for resettlement of Justice Rubin’s judgment, preparation for an appeal that was apparently never perfected, investigation of possible tort and criminal matters, etc.—are not matters for which the husband should be required to compensate the wife’s attorney. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Silverman and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 14, 1975, severing and dismissing the action as against the defendant Franklin A. Thomas, is unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to respondent Franklin A. Thomas, for the reasons stated by Justice Markowitz at Special Term. We add only that such services as are alleged to have been rendered after the fixation of fees by Justice Rubin in the Supreme Court, Kings County—fruitless applications for resettlement of Justice Rubin’s judgment, preparation for an appeal that was apparently never perfected, investigation of possible tort and criminal matters, etc.—are not matters for which the husband should be required to compensate the wife’s attorney. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Silverman and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 711, 380 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/du-broff-v-thomas-nyappdiv-1976.