Soltes v. Soltes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Soltes v. Soltes

44 A.D.2d 805, 355 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4996

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

DecidedMay 16, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 805 (Soltes v. Soltes) 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

Soltes v. Soltes, 44 A.D.2d 805, 355 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4996 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 5, 1973, to the extent that it grants plaintiff’s application for counsel fees and expenses and directs defendant to pay $5,400 to plaintiff therefor, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to reduce the allowance to the sum of $3,750, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The award made at Special Term was to cover counsel fees and expenses incurred in employing -a detective. Upon the present record, considering all the circumstances, the award was in our opinion excessive and should be reduced to the extent [806]*806indicated. Since Special Term did not apportion the lump sum award as between counsel fees and expenses, we do not do so on the assumption that plaintiff’s counsel has made appropriate arrangements in that regard. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Nunez, Murphy, Steuer and' Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order of Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 5, 1973, to the extent that it grants plaintiff’s application for counsel fees and expenses and directs defendant to pay $5,400 to plaintiff therefor, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to reduce the allowance to the sum of $3,750, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The award made at Special Term was to cover counsel fees and expenses incurred in employing -a detective. Upon the present record, considering all the circumstances, the award was in our opinion excessive and should be reduced to the extent [806]*806indicated. Since Special Term did not apportion the lump sum award as between counsel fees and expenses, we do not do so on the assumption that plaintiff’s counsel has made appropriate arrangements in that regard. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Nunez, Murphy, Steuer and' Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 805, 355 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soltes-v-soltes-nyappdiv-1974.