Marks v. Marks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marks v. Marks

25 A.D.2d 782, 269 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4445

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

DecidedApril 25, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 782 (Marks v. Marks) 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

Marks v. Marks, 25 A.D.2d 782, 269 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce, defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 3, 1966, as: (1) granted plaintiff wife’s motion to punish him for contempt of court for failing to make certain payments for support of plaintiff and two children of the parties, pendente lite, as directed by a prior order of said court; (2) denied his cross motion to modify the prior order; and (3) awarded an additional counsel fee to plaintiff. Order modified by reducing the amount to he paid for support from $275 per week to $225 per week and the award of an additional counsel fee from $1,500 to $750. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the change of circumstances in that the child Barbara is no longer residing with plaintiff and is self-supporting warrants a reduction in the support payments. We believe that an award of $750 is sufficient at this time to compensate plaintiff’s counsel for the services for which the award was made. Otherwise, it is our finding that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in determining defendant’s application to modify the order directing support payments to be made. The trial court may still determine whether plaintiff is entitled to a further additional counsel fee in the action, under the terms of that order, and that determination should rest upon the entire proof adduced at the trial (Goldberg v. Goldberg, 20 A D 2d 806).

Hill, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for divorce, defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 3, 1966, as: (1) granted plaintiff wife’s motion to punish him for contempt of court for failing to make certain payments for support of plaintiff and two children of the parties, pendente lite, as directed by a prior order of said court; (2) denied his cross motion to modify the prior order; and (3) awarded an additional counsel fee to plaintiff. Order modified by reducing the amount to he paid for support from $275 per week to $225 per week and the award of an additional counsel fee from $1,500 to $750. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the change of circumstances in that the child Barbara is no longer residing with plaintiff and is self-supporting warrants a reduction in the support payments. We believe that an award of $750 is sufficient at this time to compensate plaintiff’s counsel for the services for which the award was made. Otherwise, it is our finding that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in determining defendant’s application to modify the order directing support payments to be made. The trial court may still determine whether plaintiff is entitled to a further additional counsel fee in the action, under the terms of that order, and that determination should rest upon the entire proof adduced at the trial (Goldberg v. Goldberg, 20 A D 2d 806).

Hill, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 782, 269 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marks-v-marks-nyappdiv-1966.