Roosevelt v. Roosevelt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roosevelt v. Roosevelt

11 A.D.2d 926, 204 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8203

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 926 (Roosevelt v. Roosevelt) 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

Roosevelt v. Roosevelt, 11 A.D.2d 926, 204 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

-i- Order, dated July 15, 1960, awarding plaintiff in this separation action temporary alimony and counsel fee, unanimously modified, without costs, to the extent of reducing the counsel fee to $5,000, without prejudice to such application as plaintiff’s counsel may be advised to make upon the trial of the action for an additional allowance. In the present posture of this litigation the fee allowed is excessive. It would appear that the interests of the children of the marriage would be best served by an early trial. Settle order on notice. Motion for a stay dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision herein. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.

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

-i- Order, dated July 15, 1960, awarding plaintiff in this separation action temporary alimony and counsel fee, unanimously modified, without costs, to the extent of reducing the counsel fee to $5,000, without prejudice to such application as plaintiff’s counsel may be advised to make upon the trial of the action for an additional allowance. In the present posture of this litigation the fee allowed is excessive. It would appear that the interests of the children of the marriage would be best served by an early trial. Settle order on notice. Motion for a stay dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision herein. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 926, 204 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roosevelt-v-roosevelt-nyappdiv-1960.