Nimkoff v. Nimkoff

69 A.D.3d 501, 892 N.Y.2d 757
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 21, 2010·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[502]*502The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for prospective counsel fees and expenses in the absence of a showing of financial hardship and the estimated value and extent of the legal services contemplated (see Block v Block, 296 AD2d 343, 344 [2002]). Moreover, it is well-settled that in the absence of a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances, not here demonstrated, the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see Ayoub v Ayoub, 63 AD3d 493, 496-497 [2009]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Nimkoff v. Nimkoff, 69 A.D.3d 501, 892 N.Y.2d 757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

69 A.D.3d 501 (Nimkoff v. Nimkoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Olga P. v. Ioannis Y.
2020 NY Slip Op 2239 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Minkow v. Sanders
82 A.D.3d 597 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)