Sayegh v. Sayegh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sayegh v. Sayegh

49 A.D.3d 855, 853 N.Y.2d 887

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 2008·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The plaintiff was properly awarded an attorney’s fee in the sum of $7,000 pursuant to a stipulation of settlement, incorporated into but not merged with the parties’ judgment of divorce, which provided that an attorney’s fee would be awarded in the event of a breach of the stipulation (see Mirkin v Mirkin, 43 AD3d 1115 [2007]; Shanon v Patterson, 38 AD3d 519 [2007]; Arato v Arato, 15 AD3d 511, 512 [2005]; Sieratzki v Sieratzki, 8 AD3d 552 [2004]; Matter of Tito v Tito, 276 AD2d 559 [2000]; Matter of Curiel v Curiel, 262 AD2d 639 [1999]; Swift v Swift, 260 AD2d 466 [1999]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff was properly awarded an attorney’s fee in the sum of $7,000 pursuant to a stipulation of settlement, incorporated into but not merged with the parties’ judgment of divorce, which provided that an attorney’s fee would be awarded in the event of a breach of the stipulation (see Mirkin v Mirkin, 43 AD3d 1115 [2007]; Shanon v Patterson, 38 AD3d 519 [2007]; Arato v Arato, 15 AD3d 511, 512 [2005]; Sieratzki v Sieratzki, 8 AD3d 552 [2004]; Matter of Tito v Tito, 276 AD2d 559 [2000]; Matter of Curiel v Curiel, 262 AD2d 639 [1999]; Swift v Swift, 260 AD2d 466 [1999]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Sayegh v. Sayegh, 49 A.D.3d 855, 853 N.Y.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 855 (Sayegh v. Sayegh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related