Klisivitch v. Klisivitch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klisivitch v. Klisivitch

291 A.D.2d 433, 737 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1641

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 433 (Klisivitch v. Klisivitch) 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

Klisivitch v. Klisivitch, 291 A.D.2d 433, 737 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated May 4, 2000, which awarded the defendant wife an attorney’s fee in the sum of $150,000 and experts’ fees in the sum of $33,500.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the husband’s contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in requiring him to pay the wife approximately one half of her attorney’s fee in view of the disparity between the incomes of the parties (see, Maher v Maher, 196 AD2d 530, 532). Furthermore, the court providently exercised its discretion by awarding the wife experts’ fees at amounts which were substantially reduced from what she requested (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Ahern v [434]*434Ahern, 94 AD2d 53). Altman, J.P., Smith, S. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated May 4, 2000, which awarded the defendant wife an attorney’s fee in the sum of $150,000 and experts’ fees in the sum of $33,500.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the husband’s contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in requiring him to pay the wife approximately one half of her attorney’s fee in view of the disparity between the incomes of the parties (see, Maher v Maher, 196 AD2d 530, 532). Furthermore, the court providently exercised its discretion by awarding the wife experts’ fees at amounts which were substantially reduced from what she requested (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Ahern v [434]*434Ahern, 94 AD2d 53). Altman, J.P., Smith, S. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 433, 737 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klisivitch-v-klisivitch-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack