Iarocci v. Michaelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iarocci v. Michaelson

249 A.D.2d 209, 671 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4682

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

DecidedApril 28, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 209 (Iarocci v. Michaelson) 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

Iarocci v. Michaelson, 249 A.D.2d 209, 671 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered on or about September 19, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to modify a prior order directing defendant to pay plaintiff’s attorney $18,000 in interim fees only to the extent of directing defendant to make such pay[210]*210ment directly to plaintiff herself, and granted plaintiffs cross motion for additional interim attorneys’ fees only to the extent of awarding $5,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The awards of interim attorneys’ fees were proper exercises of discretion. It is not prerequisite to such relief that the applicant be indigent or that the applicant dispose of his or her assets (see, Nayar v Nayar, 225 AD2d 370). We have considered the parties’ other arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams 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 (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered on or about September 19, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to modify a prior order directing defendant to pay plaintiff’s attorney $18,000 in interim fees only to the extent of directing defendant to make such pay[210]*210ment directly to plaintiff herself, and granted plaintiffs cross motion for additional interim attorneys’ fees only to the extent of awarding $5,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The awards of interim attorneys’ fees were proper exercises of discretion. It is not prerequisite to such relief that the applicant be indigent or that the applicant dispose of his or her assets (see, Nayar v Nayar, 225 AD2d 370). We have considered the parties’ other arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 209, 671 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iarocci-v-michaelson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack