Frevola v. Frevola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frevola v. Frevola

260 A.D.2d 480, 686 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3856

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

DecidedApril 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 480 (Frevola v. Frevola) 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

Frevola v. Frevola, 260 A.D.2d 480, 686 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, nonparty Gabriele, Scagluso & Kuhn, L. L. P., appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J.), dated September 11, 1998, which directed them to continue to provide legal services to the respondent as her attorneys in the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While an attorney will be permitted to withdraw from employment where a client refuses to pay reasonable fees, there may be circumstances in which a court may properly compel an attorney to continue to represent a client who is in arrears [481]*481(see, Kay v Kay, 245 AD2d 549; see also, Galvano v Galvano, 193 AD2d 779). Under the circumstances here, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in directing the appellant to provide legal services to the respondent. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, nonparty Gabriele, Scagluso & Kuhn, L. L. P., appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J.), dated September 11, 1998, which directed them to continue to provide legal services to the respondent as her attorneys in the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While an attorney will be permitted to withdraw from employment where a client refuses to pay reasonable fees, there may be circumstances in which a court may properly compel an attorney to continue to represent a client who is in arrears [481]*481(see, Kay v Kay, 245 AD2d 549; see also, Galvano v Galvano, 193 AD2d 779). Under the circumstances here, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in directing the appellant to provide legal services to the respondent. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 480, 686 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frevola-v-frevola-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack