King v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. King

39 A.D.2d 918, 333 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4412

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

DecidedJune 5, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 918 (King v. King) 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

King v. King, 39 A.D.2d 918, 333 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce, defendant-husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 26, 1971, as, after a nonjury trial, granted plaintiff a divorce, alimony, counsel fees and exclusive possession of certain dwelling premises, directed defendant to pay carrying charges on said premises, and dismissed defendant’s counterclaims. Judgment modified, on the law, by adding a decretal paragraph thereto directing that the $7,500 counsel fee which was awarded therein to plaintiff shall he made payable to her, but that out of said payment she shall pay $2,500 to her attorneys. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. The findings of fact below are affirmed. Since plaintiff has already advanced her counsel $5,000 and the total fee awarded is $7,500, defendant should pay plaintiff the $7,500 directly. Prom this sum she should remit to her attorneys $2,500, representing the balance of the counsel fee award under the judgment. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Gulotta and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for divorce, defendant-husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 26, 1971, as, after a nonjury trial, granted plaintiff a divorce, alimony, counsel fees and exclusive possession of certain dwelling premises, directed defendant to pay carrying charges on said premises, and dismissed defendant’s counterclaims. Judgment modified, on the law, by adding a decretal paragraph thereto directing that the $7,500 counsel fee which was awarded therein to plaintiff shall he made payable to her, but that out of said payment she shall pay $2,500 to her attorneys. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. The findings of fact below are affirmed. Since plaintiff has already advanced her counsel $5,000 and the total fee awarded is $7,500, defendant should pay plaintiff the $7,500 directly. Prom this sum she should remit to her attorneys $2,500, representing the balance of the counsel fee award under the judgment. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Gulotta and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 918, 333 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-king-nyappdiv-1972.