Gangloff v. Gangloff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gangloff v. Gangloff

274 A.D. 1067, 86 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1949 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6092

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 274 A.D. 1067 (Gangloff v. Gangloff) 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

Gangloff v. Gangloff, 274 A.D. 1067, 86 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1949 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6092 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action by the husband for annulment on the ground of fraud, the wife’s motion for a counsel fee was denied. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, the motion granted, without costs, and plaintiff [1068]*1068directed to.pay defendant a counsel fee of $300, one half payable within ten days after entry of the order hereon, and the balance before trial. In our opinion, the denial of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

In this action by the husband for annulment on the ground of fraud, the wife’s motion for a counsel fee was denied. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, the motion granted, without costs, and plaintiff [1068]*1068directed to.pay defendant a counsel fee of $300, one half payable within ten days after entry of the order hereon, and the balance before trial. In our opinion, the denial of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D. 1067, 86 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1949 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gangloff-v-gangloff-nyappdiv-1949.