Entel v. Entel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Entel v. Entel

284 A.D.2d 152, 725 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5688

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

DecidedJune 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 152 (Entel v. Entel) 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

Entel v. Entel, 284 A.D.2d 152, 725 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered June 21, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for an upward modification of the child support provisions of a separation agreement only to the extent of ordering a hearing upon condition that defendant escrow $5,000 with her attorney to secure a possible award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiff for such hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The escrow payment that the motion court directed from defendant as a condition to going forward with her application for an upward modification of child support was a proper exercise of discretion based on the court’s “wariness” with “the accuracy and completeness of the statements contained in defendant’s affidavits given her previous history of not being completely candid” (see, Abitbol v Abitbol, 179 AD2d 595). We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered June 21, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for an upward modification of the child support provisions of a separation agreement only to the extent of ordering a hearing upon condition that defendant escrow $5,000 with her attorney to secure a possible award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiff for such hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The escrow payment that the motion court directed from defendant as a condition to going forward with her application for an upward modification of child support was a proper exercise of discretion based on the court’s “wariness” with “the accuracy and completeness of the statements contained in defendant’s affidavits given her previous history of not being completely candid” (see, Abitbol v Abitbol, 179 AD2d 595). We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 152, 725 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/entel-v-entel-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack