Goldberg v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. Goldberg

76 A.D.2d 776, 429 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11817

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

DecidedJune 12, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 76 A.D.2d 776 (Goldberg v. Goldberg) 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

Goldberg v. Goldberg, 76 A.D.2d 776, 429 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 7, 1979, awarding plaintiff wife temporary alimony of $450 a week and counsel fees pendente lite of $5,000, from portions of which both parties have appealed, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to strike the award of counsel fees, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff wife has already paid her attorney $4,500 and the sum ($5,000) awarded by Special Term was in addition to this payment. We find that the additional amount awarded was unwarranted and excessive at this stage of the litigation. Plaintiff should be relegated to the right granted to her by Special Term to make further application at the time of the trial. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Bloom and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 7, 1979, awarding plaintiff wife temporary alimony of $450 a week and counsel fees pendente lite of $5,000, from portions of which both parties have appealed, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to strike the award of counsel fees, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff wife has already paid her attorney $4,500 and the sum ($5,000) awarded by Special Term was in addition to this payment. We find that the additional amount awarded was unwarranted and excessive at this stage of the litigation. Plaintiff should be relegated to the right granted to her by Special Term to make further application at the time of the trial. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Bloom and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 776, 429 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-goldberg-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack