Porco v. Porco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Porco v. Porco

35 A.D.3d 575, 824 N.Y.S.2d 739

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 575 (Porco v. Porco) 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

Porco v. Porco, 35 A.D.3d 575, 824 N.Y.S.2d 739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiffs attorney, Jack Economou, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated March 13, 2006, which denied his motion for an award of an attorney’s fee in the sum of $4,540 to be paid by the defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee in connection with his pro bono assignment. Given the defendant’s child support and marital obligations, the defendant lacks the ability to pay the plaintiffs attorney’s fee (see Popelaski v Popelaski, 22 AD3d 735, 738 [2005]; Pontorno v Pontorno, 172 AD2d 734 [1991]). Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiffs attorney, Jack Economou, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated March 13, 2006, which denied his motion for an award of an attorney’s fee in the sum of $4,540 to be paid by the defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee in connection with his pro bono assignment. Given the defendant’s child support and marital obligations, the defendant lacks the ability to pay the plaintiffs attorney’s fee (see Popelaski v Popelaski, 22 AD3d 735, 738 [2005]; Pontorno v Pontorno, 172 AD2d 734 [1991]). Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 575, 824 N.Y.S.2d 739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porco-v-porco-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack