Marin v. Marin

283 A.D.2d 615, 725 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5531
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 29, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 615 (Marin v. Marin) 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
Marin v. Marin, 283 A.D.2d 615, 725 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County (Sherwood, J.), entered March 3, 2000, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded the defendant an attorney’s fee in the sum of $12,500 and directed him to pay 50% of the cost of private parochial school tuition for the parties’ two children, and the defendant cross-appeals from stated portions of the same amended judgment.

Ordered that the defendant’s cross appeal from the amended judgment is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment is modified by deleting the provision thereof awarding the defendant an attorney’s fee in the sum of $12,500; as so modified, the amended judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Rock-land County, for a new determination on the issue of counsel fees.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in directing him to pay 50% of the cost of private parochial school tuition for the parties’ two children (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]; Chan v Kwan Chan, 267 AD2d 413; Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 203 AD2d 563, affd 85 NY2d 649; Allen L. v Myrna L., 224 AD2d 495).

The trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in determining the issue of counsel fees without giving the plaintiff a sufficient opportunity to submit evidence on the issue. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Corkery v. Corkery
142 A.D.3d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Iarocci v. Iarocci
98 A.D.3d 999 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Felix v. Felix
87 A.D.3d 1106 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Louzoun v. Montalto
70 A.D.3d 652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Liles v. Liles
56 A.D.2d 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 A.D.2d 615, 725 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marin-v-marin-nyappdiv-2001.