Lambert v. Lambert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lambert v. Lambert

45 A.D.2d 715, 356 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4836

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

DecidedJune 3, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 715 (Lambert v. Lambert) 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

Lambert v. Lambert, 45 A.D.2d 715, 356 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action in which a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, was made on December 29, 1972, after a nonjury trial, inter alia granting defendant a divorce, plaintiff appeals from an order of the same court, dated September 7, 1973, which granted defendant’s motion for a counsel fee and printing expenses in opposing a prior appeal by plaintiff, one from so much of the judgment as, upon the second cause of action in defendant’s “ cross complaint”, directed plaintiff to pay defendant $20,000, plus interest, representing one half of the funds on deposit in a joint bank account (see Lambert v. Lambert, 42 A D 2d-903). Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. There is no statutory authority to award a counsel fee and printing expenses upon a nonmatrimonial cause of action (cf. Domestic Relations Law, §§ 237, 238). Consequently, Special Term lacked the power to make such an award here (Silbert V. Silbert, 22 A D 2d 893, affd. 16 N T 2d 564; 'Blaine V. Blame, 20 A D 2d 903). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action in which a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, was made on December 29, 1972, after a nonjury trial, inter alia granting defendant a divorce, plaintiff appeals from an order of the same court, dated September 7, 1973, which granted defendant’s motion for a counsel fee and printing expenses in opposing a prior appeal by plaintiff, one from so much of the judgment as, upon the second cause of action in defendant’s “ cross complaint”, directed plaintiff to pay defendant $20,000, plus interest, representing one half of the funds on deposit in a joint bank account (see Lambert v. Lambert, 42 A D 2d-903). Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. There is no statutory authority to award a counsel fee and printing expenses upon a nonmatrimonial cause of action (cf. Domestic Relations Law, §§ 237, 238). Consequently, Special Term lacked the power to make such an award here (Silbert V. Silbert, 22 A D 2d 893, affd. 16 N T 2d 564; 'Blaine V. Blame, 20 A D 2d 903). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 715, 356 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lambert-v-lambert-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack