Spoto v. Spoto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spoto v. Spoto

19 A.D.2d 633, 241 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3648

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

DecidedJune 10, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 633 (Spoto v. Spoto) 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

Spoto v. Spoto, 19 A.D.2d 633, 241 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, (1) for a declaratory judgment that a Mexican divorce decree is void, (2) for rescission of a separation agreement, and (3) for a divorce, defendant Michael G. Spoto appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 5, 1963, which awarded plaintiff $1,000 counsel fees with leave to apply to the trial court for an additional allowance. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, with leave to plaintiff to renew the application for counsel fees upon the trial, if she be so advised. The moving papers show no necessity for counsel fees to enable plaintiff to carry on the action; such a showing is an essential basis for the allowance of counsel fees pendente lite (Civ. Prae. Act, §§ 1169, 1169-a; Lake [634]*634V. Lake, 194 N. Y. 179). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, (1) for a declaratory judgment that a Mexican divorce decree is void, (2) for rescission of a separation agreement, and (3) for a divorce, defendant Michael G. Spoto appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 5, 1963, which awarded plaintiff $1,000 counsel fees with leave to apply to the trial court for an additional allowance. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, with leave to plaintiff to renew the application for counsel fees upon the trial, if she be so advised. The moving papers show no necessity for counsel fees to enable plaintiff to carry on the action; such a showing is an essential basis for the allowance of counsel fees pendente lite (Civ. Prae. Act, §§ 1169, 1169-a; Lake [634]*634V. Lake, 194 N. Y. 179). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 633, 241 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spoto-v-spoto-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack