Eisen v. Eisen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eisen v. Eisen

211 A.D.2d 497, 621 N.Y.S.2d 866

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 497 (Eisen v. Eisen) 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

Eisen v. Eisen, 211 A.D.2d 497, 621 N.Y.S.2d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about January 31, 1994, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for pendente lite maintenance in the amount of $950.00 per week, and order same court and Justice, entered on or about July 5, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion for, inter alia, downward modification and to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Considering, among other things, plaintiff’s assets, expenses and earning capacity, and defendant’s income, we find the award of maintenance pendente lite not to be excessive. Defendant’s motion to relieve plaintiff’s counsel was properly denied [498]*498as defendant failed to demonstrate that counsel’s testimony would be "necessary” in the pending litigation (H.H.B.K. 45th St. Corp. v Stern, 158 AD2d 395, 396). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about January 31, 1994, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for pendente lite maintenance in the amount of $950.00 per week, and order same court and Justice, entered on or about July 5, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion for, inter alia, downward modification and to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Considering, among other things, plaintiff’s assets, expenses and earning capacity, and defendant’s income, we find the award of maintenance pendente lite not to be excessive. Defendant’s motion to relieve plaintiff’s counsel was properly denied [498]*498as defendant failed to demonstrate that counsel’s testimony would be "necessary” in the pending litigation (H.H.B.K. 45th St. Corp. v Stern, 158 AD2d 395, 396). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 497, 621 N.Y.S.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisen-v-eisen-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack