Oates v. Oates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oates v. Oates

30 A.D.2d 658, 292 N.Y.S.2d 3

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

DecidedJune 27, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 658 (Oates v. Oates) 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

Oates v. Oates, 30 A.D.2d 658, 292 N.Y.S.2d 3 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered January 5, 1968, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of granting plaintiff’s application for counsel fees and awarding to her the sum of $250 as such fees, and as so modified affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant. In the circumstances, the plaintiff wife was entitled to an allowance of counsel fees in the sum fixed in connection with her motion to punish defendant husband for contempt in his failure to make payments for support and maintenance of his children as provided by a judgment of divorce and in connection with her opposition to defendant’s cross motion to reduce the payments. Concur— Botein, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, McGivern and Macken, JJ.

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

Order, entered January 5, 1968, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of granting plaintiff’s application for counsel fees and awarding to her the sum of $250 as such fees, and as so modified affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant. In the circumstances, the plaintiff wife was entitled to an allowance of counsel fees in the sum fixed in connection with her motion to punish defendant husband for contempt in his failure to make payments for support and maintenance of his children as provided by a judgment of divorce and in connection with her opposition to defendant’s cross motion to reduce the payments. Concur— Botein, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, McGivern and Macken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 658, 292 N.Y.S.2d 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oates-v-oates-nyappdiv-1968.