Goldstein v. Shapiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. Shapiro

251 A.D.2d 372, 672 N.Y.S.2d 823

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

DecidedJune 8, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 372 (Goldstein v. Shapiro) 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. Shapiro, 251 A.D.2d 372, 672 N.Y.S.2d 823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.), entered November 27, 1996, which granted the plaintiff wife’s motion for additional counsel fees in the amount of $25,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s contention that he did not agree to waive a [373]*373hearing on the issue of attorney’s fees is refuted by the record. The record reveals that the parties stipulated that the issue would be decided without a hearing. Furthermore, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Supreme Court’s determination (see, Matter of Quick v Quick, 226 AD2d 644).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.), entered November 27, 1996, which granted the plaintiff wife’s motion for additional counsel fees in the amount of $25,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s contention that he did not agree to waive a [373]*373hearing on the issue of attorney’s fees is refuted by the record. The record reveals that the parties stipulated that the issue would be decided without a hearing. Furthermore, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Supreme Court’s determination (see, Matter of Quick v Quick, 226 AD2d 644).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 372, 672 N.Y.S.2d 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-shapiro-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack