Filippatos v. Filippatos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Filippatos v. Filippatos

22 A.D.3d 316, 802 N.Y.S.2d 414

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

DecidedOctober 13, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 316 (Filippatos v. Filippatos) 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

Filippatos v. Filippatos, 22 A.D.3d 316, 802 N.Y.S.2d 414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[317]*317Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered December 29, 2004, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s cross motion for interim counsel fees to the extent of awarding $30,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of interim counsel fees was properly based upon consideration of, inter alia, defendant’s indigence, plaintiffs financial resources and plaintiffs failure to substantiate claims that required an emergency two-day hearing on the issue of custody (Domestic Relations Law § 237; see Wechsler v Wechsler, 19 AD3d 157 [2005]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs argument that the award lacks appropriate evidentiary support. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

[317]*317Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered December 29, 2004, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s cross motion for interim counsel fees to the extent of awarding $30,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of interim counsel fees was properly based upon consideration of, inter alia, defendant’s indigence, plaintiffs financial resources and plaintiffs failure to substantiate claims that required an emergency two-day hearing on the issue of custody (Domestic Relations Law § 237; see Wechsler v Wechsler, 19 AD3d 157 [2005]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs argument that the award lacks appropriate evidentiary support. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 316, 802 N.Y.S.2d 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/filippatos-v-filippatos-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack