Herschbein v. Herschbein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herschbein v. Herschbein

308 A.D.2d 585, 764 N.Y.S.2d 874

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 585 (Herschbein v. Herschbein) 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

Herschbein v. Herschbein, 308 A.D.2d 585, 764 N.Y.S.2d 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 and two related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), dated December 20, 2002, as denied that branch of her motion which was for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The denial of the mother’s application for an award of an attorney’s fee was a provident exercise of discretion, taking into consideration the parties’ positions and actions during the litigation (cf DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; Walker v Walker, 255 AD2d 375, 376 [1998]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 and two related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), dated December 20, 2002, as denied that branch of her motion which was for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The denial of the mother’s application for an award of an attorney’s fee was a provident exercise of discretion, taking into consideration the parties’ positions and actions during the litigation (cf DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; Walker v Walker, 255 AD2d 375, 376 [1998]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 585, 764 N.Y.S.2d 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herschbein-v-herschbein-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack