Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

297 A.D.2d 620, 746 N.Y.2d 904, 746 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8284
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 9, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion, inter alia, for an award of an attorney’s fee and a charging lien against the plaintiff (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; O’Shea v O’Shea, 93 NY2d 187), based on its prior award of various interim attorney’s fees and its determination that the defendant was disproportionately responsible for the unduly contentious and protracted nature of the proceedings (see e.g. Walker v Walker, 255 AD2d 375; Love v Love, 250 AD2d 739). Ritter, J.P., Altman, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 297 A.D.2d 620, 746 N.Y.2d 904, 746 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

297 A.D.2d 620 (Gottlieb v. Gottlieb) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Humes v. Humes
2017 NY Slip Op 8505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Chamberlain v. Chamberlain
24 A.D.3d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)