Noskin v. Noskin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Noskin v. Noskin

298 A.D.2d 371, 751 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9424

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 371 (Noskin v. Noskin) 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

Noskin v. Noskin, 298 A.D.2d 371, 751 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to equitably distribute the parties’ marital property, based on a judgment of divorce issued by the Superior Court of Arizona, County of Maricopa, dated May 27, 1992, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), dated October 29, 1999, which denied that branch of her motion which was for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the branch of her motion which was for an award of an attorney’s fee (see Domestic Relations Law § 238). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Goldstein, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to equitably distribute the parties’ marital property, based on a judgment of divorce issued by the Superior Court of Arizona, County of Maricopa, dated May 27, 1992, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), dated October 29, 1999, which denied that branch of her motion which was for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the branch of her motion which was for an award of an attorney’s fee (see Domestic Relations Law § 238). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Goldstein, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 371, 751 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noskin-v-noskin-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack