Rossetter v. Rossetter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rossetter v. Rossetter

300 A.D.2d 112, 750 N.Y.S.2d 848, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12154

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 112 (Rossetter v. Rossetter) 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

Rossetter v. Rossetter, 300 A.D.2d 112, 750 N.Y.S.2d 848, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), entered December 6, 2001, awarding defendant’s former counsel, the law firm of Stein Riso Mantel, LLP, counsel fees in the sum of $50,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from an order, same court and Justice, entered October 31, 2001, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

In light of the motion court’s “great flexibility” in awarding interim counsel fees (De Bernardo v De Bernardo, 180 AD2d 500, 502), and the controlling equitable principles (see Charpié v Charpié, 271 AD2d 169, 171), we find that the court properly exercised its discretion in accepting, as adequate, defendant’s disclosure of her financial circumstances (cf. DiSanto v DiSanto, 279 AD2d 603). The amount of the fee award is not excessive. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), entered December 6, 2001, awarding defendant’s former counsel, the law firm of Stein Riso Mantel, LLP, counsel fees in the sum of $50,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from an order, same court and Justice, entered October 31, 2001, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

In light of the motion court’s “great flexibility” in awarding interim counsel fees (De Bernardo v De Bernardo, 180 AD2d 500, 502), and the controlling equitable principles (see Charpié v Charpié, 271 AD2d 169, 171), we find that the court properly exercised its discretion in accepting, as adequate, defendant’s disclosure of her financial circumstances (cf. DiSanto v DiSanto, 279 AD2d 603). The amount of the fee award is not excessive. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 112, 750 N.Y.S.2d 848, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rossetter-v-rossetter-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack