Goldstein v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. Goldstein

251 A.D.2d 272, 675 N.Y.S.2d 64

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

DecidedJune 30, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 272 (Goldstein v. Goldstein) 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

Goldstein v. Goldstein, 251 A.D.2d 272, 675 N.Y.S.2d 64 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered January 9, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report and awarded her counsel fees of $85,959.47 plus interest and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to disaffirm the Referee’s report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the history of adjournments by plaintiff in this matrimonial action and the fact that the date of the hearing upon defendant’s entitlement to counsel fees had been repeatedly marked “final”, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for a ninth adjournment predicated on an unsworn letter and in subsequently denying plaintiff’s motion to reopen the hearing (Treppeda v Treppeda, 212 AD2d 592; Matter of Bevona [Alma Realty], 201 AD2d 309). Plaintiff’s argument disputing the award of counsel fees to defendant on the merits is not supported by the record. We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered January 9, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report and awarded her counsel fees of $85,959.47 plus interest and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to disaffirm the Referee’s report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the history of adjournments by plaintiff in this matrimonial action and the fact that the date of the hearing upon defendant’s entitlement to counsel fees had been repeatedly marked “final”, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for a ninth adjournment predicated on an unsworn letter and in subsequently denying plaintiff’s motion to reopen the hearing (Treppeda v Treppeda, 212 AD2d 592; Matter of Bevona [Alma Realty], 201 AD2d 309). Plaintiff’s argument disputing the award of counsel fees to defendant on the merits is not supported by the record. We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 272, 675 N.Y.S.2d 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack