Faust v. Faust

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Faust v. Faust

199 A.D.2d 1057, 608 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12682

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 1057 (Faust v. Faust) 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

Faust v. Faust, 199 A.D.2d 1057, 608 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The record presented on this appeal is inadequate to support defendant’s contention that Supreme Court improperly exercised its discretion in awarding plaintiff $20,000 for counsel fees and $62.02 for disbursements. Defendant does not contest the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly fee, and we conclude that the court, in awarding plaintiff only a portion of the total fee requested, considered those factors raised by defendant, specifically, the relative financial circumstances of the parties, marital misconduct and alleged obstructionist and delaying tactics. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, Jr., J.—Counsel Fees.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The record presented on this appeal is inadequate to support defendant’s contention that Supreme Court improperly exercised its discretion in awarding plaintiff $20,000 for counsel fees and $62.02 for disbursements. Defendant does not contest the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly fee, and we conclude that the court, in awarding plaintiff only a portion of the total fee requested, considered those factors raised by defendant, specifically, the relative financial circumstances of the parties, marital misconduct and alleged obstructionist and delaying tactics. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, Jr., J.—Counsel Fees.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 1057, 608 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faust-v-faust-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack