Sherman v. Sherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sherman v. Sherman

8 A.D.2d 703, 185 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8649

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

DecidedMay 12, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 703 (Sherman v. Sherman) 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

Sherman v. Sherman, 8 A.D.2d 703, 185 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment granting defendant husband a separation on his counterclaim and dismissing plaintiff wife’s complaint unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of awarding plaintiff wife a counsel fee of $2,000 and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs. The Justice sitting at the Special and Trial Term evidently concluded that the application for counsel fees for services rendered up to and including the trial must fail because of its determination on the merits of plaintiff’s complaint. There was no such necessity and, given the power, a counsel fee should have been awarded. Even defendant husband concedes that such an allowance was permissible at least for the defense against his counterclaim for separation. Settle order. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente- and Stevens, JJ.

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

Judgment granting defendant husband a separation on his counterclaim and dismissing plaintiff wife’s complaint unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of awarding plaintiff wife a counsel fee of $2,000 and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs. The Justice sitting at the Special and Trial Term evidently concluded that the application for counsel fees for services rendered up to and including the trial must fail because of its determination on the merits of plaintiff’s complaint. There was no such necessity and, given the power, a counsel fee should have been awarded. Even defendant husband concedes that such an allowance was permissible at least for the defense against his counterclaim for separation. Settle order. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente- and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 703, 185 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-sherman-nyappdiv-1959.