Nalven v. Nalven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nalven v. Nalven

54 A.D.2d 925, 388 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14776

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 925 (Nalven v. Nalven) 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

Nalven v. Nalven, 54 A.D.2d 925, 388 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action in which the plaintiff wife was granted a divorce by a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 10, 1976, (1) defendant appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of the said judgment as awarded plaintiff a counsel fee of $10,000, and (2) plaintiff cross-appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from the same portion of the judgment. Judgment modified, on the facts, by reducing the counsel fee to $7,500. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The counsel fee was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action in which the plaintiff wife was granted a divorce by a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 10, 1976, (1) defendant appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of the said judgment as awarded plaintiff a counsel fee of $10,000, and (2) plaintiff cross-appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from the same portion of the judgment. Judgment modified, on the facts, by reducing the counsel fee to $7,500. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The counsel fee was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 925, 388 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nalven-v-nalven-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack