Okpaku v. Okpaku

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Okpaku v. Okpaku

45 A.D.2d 951, 359 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4072

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 951 (Okpaku v. Okpaku) 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

Okpaku v. Okpaku, 45 A.D.2d 951, 359 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4072 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 28, 1974, awarding plaintiff temporary alimony of $50 per week, child support of $150 per week, and counsel fees of $1,600, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of striking the provisions for temporary alimony and counsel fees, without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to apply to the trial court for counsel fees, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Giving due consideration to all of the circumstances disclosed in the record before this court, and in particular to the fact that plaintiff, an attorney and assistant professor of law, has the present ability to be self-supporting (Domestic Relations Law, § 236), we conclude that temporary alimony and counsel fees are not justified. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 28, 1974, awarding plaintiff temporary alimony of $50 per week, child support of $150 per week, and counsel fees of $1,600, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of striking the provisions for temporary alimony and counsel fees, without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to apply to the trial court for counsel fees, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Giving due consideration to all of the circumstances disclosed in the record before this court, and in particular to the fact that plaintiff, an attorney and assistant professor of law, has the present ability to be self-supporting (Domestic Relations Law, § 236), we conclude that temporary alimony and counsel fees are not justified. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 951, 359 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/okpaku-v-okpaku-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack