Tornese v. Tornese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tornese v. Tornese

55 A.D.2d 602, 389 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15309

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 602 (Tornese v. Tornese) 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

Tornese v. Tornese, 55 A.D.2d 602, 389 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 30, 1976, as, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, fixed the amounts of alimony, child support and counsel fees. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The fixing of alimony, child support and counsel fees is discretionary with the trial court upon its balancing of the various aspects of the marital relationship (see Hessen v Hessen, 33 NY2d 406; Schwartz v Schwartz, 52 AD2d 874). Within that framework, we do not find that the amounts of the awards under review constituted an abuse of discretion. Margett, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 30, 1976, as, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, fixed the amounts of alimony, child support and counsel fees. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The fixing of alimony, child support and counsel fees is discretionary with the trial court upon its balancing of the various aspects of the marital relationship (see Hessen v Hessen, 33 NY2d 406; Schwartz v Schwartz, 52 AD2d 874). Within that framework, we do not find that the amounts of the awards under review constituted an abuse of discretion. Margett, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 602, 389 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tornese-v-tornese-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack