Pitts v. Pitts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pitts v. Pitts

305 A.D.2d 389, 758 N.Y.S.2d 528

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

DecidedMay 5, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 389 (Pitts v. Pitts) 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

Pitts v. Pitts, 305 A.D.2d 389, 758 N.Y.S.2d 528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated November 2, 2000, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Montagnino, R.), entered March 28, 2002 as, upon reargument, adhered to so much of its original determination in an order of the same court, dated December 17, 2001, as denied his motion for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The issue of the apportionment of an attorney’s fee is controlled by the circumstances and equities of each particular case (see Grossman v Grossman, 260 AD2d 602 [1999]), and the trial court is in the best position to assess these factors (see Matter of Braham v Braham, 264 AD2d 418 [1999]). Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to award the defendant an attorney’s fee. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated November 2, 2000, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Montagnino, R.), entered March 28, 2002 as, upon reargument, adhered to so much of its original determination in an order of the same court, dated December 17, 2001, as denied his motion for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The issue of the apportionment of an attorney’s fee is controlled by the circumstances and equities of each particular case (see Grossman v Grossman, 260 AD2d 602 [1999]), and the trial court is in the best position to assess these factors (see Matter of Braham v Braham, 264 AD2d 418 [1999]). Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to award the defendant an attorney’s fee. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 389, 758 N.Y.S.2d 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitts-v-pitts-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack