Terian v. Terian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Terian v. Terian

211 A.D.2d 538, 621 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 523

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 538 (Terian v. Terian) 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

Terian v. Terian, 211 A.D.2d 538, 621 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered May 18, 1993, which, upon granting plaintiff’s motion for reargument, modified a prior order, same court and Justice, entered February 5, 1993, to the extent of denying defendant summary judgment on his counterclaim for attorney’s fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of the stipulation of settlement did not include a claim that the defendant had failed to maintain the required life insurance policy, such claim having been clearly set forth in both plaintiff’s notice to cure dated November 16, 1990 and the verified complaint. Inasmuch as defendant admits that he allowed the policy to lapse and did not reinstate it until after plaintiff commenced these enforcement proceedings, plaintiff was properly deemed to be a "successful” party on that issue, and as the stipulation contains no provision for apportioning attorney’s fees in the event both parties are successful to some extent in enforcement proceedings, the IAS Court properly determined that each party should be responsible for his or her own legal fees (see, 72nd St. Assocs. v Pyle, 105 AD2d 607, appeal dismissed 64 NY2d 774). Concur —Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered May 18, 1993, which, upon granting plaintiff’s motion for reargument, modified a prior order, same court and Justice, entered February 5, 1993, to the extent of denying defendant summary judgment on his counterclaim for attorney’s fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of the stipulation of settlement did not include a claim that the defendant had failed to maintain the required life insurance policy, such claim having been clearly set forth in both plaintiff’s notice to cure dated November 16, 1990 and the verified complaint. Inasmuch as defendant admits that he allowed the policy to lapse and did not reinstate it until after plaintiff commenced these enforcement proceedings, plaintiff was properly deemed to be a "successful” party on that issue, and as the stipulation contains no provision for apportioning attorney’s fees in the event both parties are successful to some extent in enforcement proceedings, the IAS Court properly determined that each party should be responsible for his or her own legal fees (see, 72nd St. Assocs. v Pyle, 105 AD2d 607, appeal dismissed 64 NY2d 774). Concur —Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 538, 621 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terian-v-terian-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack