Miller v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Miller

94 A.D.3d 1064, 942 N.Y.S.2d 796

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

DecidedApril 24, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.3d 1064 (Miller v. Miller) 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

Miller v. Miller, 94 A.D.3d 1064, 942 N.Y.S.2d 796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated February 13, 2008, as granted those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were for an award of pendente lite child support and maintenance, and interim counsel fees.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, based on the apparent disparity in the parties’ relative financial positions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees (see Gaffney-Romanello v Romanello, 82 AD3d 930 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Cohen, 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 ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated February 13, 2008, as granted those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were for an award of pendente lite child support and maintenance, and interim counsel fees.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, based on the apparent disparity in the parties’ relative financial positions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees (see Gaffney-Romanello v Romanello, 82 AD3d 930 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 1064, 942 N.Y.S.2d 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-miller-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack