Ernst v. Ernst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ernst v. Ernst

277 A.D.2d 1045

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 1045 (Ernst v. Ernst) 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

Ernst v. Ernst, 277 A.D.2d 1045 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 1045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernst-v-ernst-nyappdiv-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack