Inzeo v. Inzeo
228 A.D.2d 564, 644 N.Y.2d 627, 644 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7151
Opinion
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for an award of costs and attorney’s fees to enable her to prosecute her appeal from the order dated April 7, 1994 (see, Kret v Kret, 222 AD2d 412; Kavanakudiyil v Kavanakudiyil, 203 AD2d 250). Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Inzeo v. Inzeo, 228 A.D.2d 564, 644 N.Y.2d 627, 644 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
228 A.D.2d 564 (Inzeo v. Inzeo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kret v. Kret
222 A.D.2d 412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Kavanakudiyil v. Kavanakudiyil
203 A.D.2d 250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)