Le v. Le

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Le v. Le

82 A.D.3d 846, 918 N.Y.2d 377

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 846 (Le v. Le) 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

Le v. Le, 82 A.D.3d 846, 918 N.Y.2d 377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion of the plaintiff former wife which was for an award of counsel fees incurred in enforcing a judgment of divorce after the defendant former husband unjustifiably refused to consent to the release of monies held in escrow after the marital home was sold pursuant to the judgment (see Domestic Relations Law § 238; Schiffer v Schiffer, 55 AD3d 714, 715 [2008]). However, since the plaintiff requested counsel fees only in the sum of $5,000 in her motion, and in light of the parties’ financial circumstances, the Supreme Court [847]*847improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff the sum of $9,390.50 (see Domestic Relations Law § 238; Lee v Lee, 57 AD3d 487 [2008]). Thus, we reduce the award to $5,000.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.E, Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion of the plaintiff former wife which was for an award of counsel fees incurred in enforcing a judgment of divorce after the defendant former husband unjustifiably refused to consent to the release of monies held in escrow after the marital home was sold pursuant to the judgment (see Domestic Relations Law § 238; Schiffer v Schiffer, 55 AD3d 714, 715 [2008]). However, since the plaintiff requested counsel fees only in the sum of $5,000 in her motion, and in light of the parties’ financial circumstances, the Supreme Court [847]*847improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff the sum of $9,390.50 (see Domestic Relations Law § 238; Lee v Lee, 57 AD3d 487 [2008]). Thus, we reduce the award to $5,000.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.E, Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 846, 918 N.Y.2d 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/le-v-le-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack