Seaman v. Seaman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seaman v. Seaman

32 A.D.2d 619, 299 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4053

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

DecidedMay 6, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 619 (Seaman v. Seaman) 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

Seaman v. Seaman, 32 A.D.2d 619, 299 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered December 27, 1968, allowing defendant wife counsel fees to defend against appeal from order dismissing complaint unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The action for divorce brought by plaintiff husband, an attorney, is grounded on alleged cruel and inhuman treatment and abandonment. Since, in spite of the long and tortuous litigation preceding this motion, it appeared defendant might still have a meritorious defense, at least sufficient to bar the specific relief sought by plaintiff, the modest award at $375, and printing costs, by Special Term, does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order entered December 27, 1968, allowing defendant wife counsel fees to defend against appeal from order dismissing complaint unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The action for divorce brought by plaintiff husband, an attorney, is grounded on alleged cruel and inhuman treatment and abandonment. Since, in spite of the long and tortuous litigation preceding this motion, it appeared defendant might still have a meritorious defense, at least sufficient to bar the specific relief sought by plaintiff, the modest award at $375, and printing costs, by Special Term, does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 619, 299 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaman-v-seaman-nyappdiv-1969.