Karas-Abraham v. Abraham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karas-Abraham v. Abraham

46 A.D.3d 296, 847 N.Y.S.2d 82

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 296 (Karas-Abraham v. Abraham) 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

Karas-Abraham v. Abraham, 46 A.D.3d 296, 847 N.Y.S.2d 82 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered on or about November 8, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs motion for a pendente lite award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $50,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The interim award was a proper exercise of discretion in light of defendant husband’s greater financial resources and the fact that his actions have caused this protracted litigation (Stella v Stella, 16 AD3d 109 [2005]). By awarding a relatively small fraction of the total amount requested, the court left for trial the issue of whether the fees charged were excessive. Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered on or about November 8, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs motion for a pendente lite award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $50,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The interim award was a proper exercise of discretion in light of defendant husband’s greater financial resources and the fact that his actions have caused this protracted litigation (Stella v Stella, 16 AD3d 109 [2005]). By awarding a relatively small fraction of the total amount requested, the court left for trial the issue of whether the fees charged were excessive. Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 296, 847 N.Y.S.2d 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karas-abraham-v-abraham-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack