Vanderpool v. Vanderpool

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vanderpool v. Vanderpool

40 A.D.2d 1030, 339 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3035

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 1030 (Vanderpool v. Vanderpool) 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

Vanderpool v. Vanderpool, 40 A.D.2d 1030, 339 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce, Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. B appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 6, 1972, as appointed appellant to serve as counsel for defendant. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion in appointing appellant as defendant’s counsel after the court was informed that appellant, a federally funded organization, had neither the man[1031]*1031power nor funds to undertake defendant’s defense. In view of this determination, we do not reach the other questions raised by appellant. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for divorce, Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. B appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 6, 1972, as appointed appellant to serve as counsel for defendant. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion in appointing appellant as defendant’s counsel after the court was informed that appellant, a federally funded organization, had neither the man[1031]*1031power nor funds to undertake defendant’s defense. In view of this determination, we do not reach the other questions raised by appellant. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 1030, 339 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanderpool-v-vanderpool-nyappdiv-1972.