Unger v. Unger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Unger v. Unger

240 A.D.2d 189, 658 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5974

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

DecidedJune 5, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 189 (Unger v. Unger) 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

Unger v. Unger, 240 A.D.2d 189, 658 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered March 5, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm a Referee’s report, in which it was declared that defendant properly may be charged with such financial [190]*190assets as to warrant an award of counsel fees to plaintiffs attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The question referred was "whether the financial circumstances of the parties herein creates a disparity of financial means so as to warrant an award of counsel, fees to plaintiffs attorney”. The Referee concluded that defendant’s assets warranted such an award. Because the court was not furnished with a transcript or other record of the hearing testimony, and defendant did not show that the Referee’s conclusion was unsupported by the record, the court properly accepted the Referee’s findings of fact (see, Matter of 600 W. 161st St. Corp. [Lai], 220 AD2d 301). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered March 5, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm a Referee’s report, in which it was declared that defendant properly may be charged with such financial [190]*190assets as to warrant an award of counsel fees to plaintiffs attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The question referred was "whether the financial circumstances of the parties herein creates a disparity of financial means so as to warrant an award of counsel, fees to plaintiffs attorney”. The Referee concluded that defendant’s assets warranted such an award. Because the court was not furnished with a transcript or other record of the hearing testimony, and defendant did not show that the Referee’s conclusion was unsupported by the record, the court properly accepted the Referee’s findings of fact (see, Matter of 600 W. 161st St. Corp. [Lai], 220 AD2d 301). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 189, 658 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/unger-v-unger-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack