Fischman v. Fischman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fischman v. Fischman

237 A.D.2d 561, 655 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3014

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 561 (Fischman v. Fischman) 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

Fischman v. Fischman, 237 A.D.2d 561, 655 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3014 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered January 10, 1996, as granted that branch of the plaintiff wife’s motion which was for interim counsel fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the plaintiff wife $15,000 in interim counsel fees (see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879; Ferdinand v Ferdinand, 215 AD2d 350; Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]).

We have considered the defendant husband’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered January 10, 1996, as granted that branch of the plaintiff wife’s motion which was for interim counsel fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the plaintiff wife $15,000 in interim counsel fees (see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879; Ferdinand v Ferdinand, 215 AD2d 350; Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]).

We have considered the defendant husband’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 561, 655 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fischman-v-fischman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack