Marcus v. Marcus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marcus v. Marcus

249 A.D.2d 518, 671 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4592

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

DecidedApril 27, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 518 (Marcus v. Marcus) 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

Marcus v. Marcus, 249 A.D.2d 518, 671 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancil[519]*519lary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated February 25, 1997, as (1) granted the plaintiffs cross motion for reargument, and upon reargument, reduced the amount of the plaintiffs pendente lite child support obligations, and (2) denied that branch of her motion which was for counsel fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in reducing the amount of the plaintiffs pendente lite child support obligations. '

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Florio, 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 ancil[519]*519lary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated February 25, 1997, as (1) granted the plaintiffs cross motion for reargument, and upon reargument, reduced the amount of the plaintiffs pendente lite child support obligations, and (2) denied that branch of her motion which was for counsel fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in reducing the amount of the plaintiffs pendente lite child support obligations. '

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 518, 671 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcus-v-marcus-nyappdiv-1998.