Jerman v. Jerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jerman v. Jerman

80 A.D.2d 825, 436 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10635

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 2, 1981·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a money judgment for arrears due under the escalation clause of the parties’ separation agreement, incorporated but not merged into a decree of divorce, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 18, 1980, which, after a hearing, fixed [826] arrears and awarded plaintiff a counsel fee. Judgment modified by deleting the second decretal paragraph, which awarded plaintiff a counsel fee. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and case remanded to Trial Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. Although the award of a counsel fee is permissible in the instant action (see Fab'rikant v Fabrikant, 19 NY2d 154), defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, as requested, in which he may challenge the value and extent of counsel’s claimed services (see Sadofsky v Sadofsky, 78 AD2d 520). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a money judgment for arrears due under the escalation clause of the parties’ separation agreement, incorporated but not merged into a decree of divorce, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 18, 1980, which, after a hearing, fixed [826] arrears and awarded plaintiff a counsel fee. Judgment modified by deleting the second decretal paragraph, which awarded plaintiff a counsel fee. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and case remanded to Trial Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. Although the award of a counsel fee is permissible in the instant action (see Fab'rikant v Fabrikant, 19 NY2d 154), defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, as requested, in which he may challenge the value and extent of counsel’s claimed services (see Sadofsky v Sadofsky, 78 AD2d 520). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Jerman v. Jerman, 80 A.D.2d 825, 436 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

80 A.D.2d 825 (Jerman v. Jerman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related