Ernst v. Ernst
277 A.D.2d 1045
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 1950·Published
Opinion
In a separation action, judgment modified on the law by striking therefrom the sixth ordering paragraph relating to payment of a counsel fee. As so modified, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, without costs. The allowance for counsel fee was improperly incorporated in the judgment because it is remuneration for past services. (Beadleston v. Beadleston, 103 N. Y. 402; Stevens v. Stevens, 214 App. Div. 785; Fisher v. Fisher, 223 App. Div. 19.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston,'Adel and Sneed, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ernst v. Ernst, 277 A.D.2d 1045 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).
277 A.D.2d 1045 (Ernst v. Ernst) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Beadleston v. . Beadleston
8 N.E. 735 (New York Court of Appeals, 1886)
Stevens v. Stevens
214 A.D. 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
Fisher v. Fisher
223 A.D. 19 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1928)