Weber v. Weber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weber v. Weber

156 A.D.2d 189, 548 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15473

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 189 (Weber v. Weber) 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

Weber v. Weber, 156 A.D.2d 189, 548 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on February 21, 1988, which, inter alia, awarded counsel fees pendente lite to the plaintiff in the amount of $10,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

We find that the award of counsel fees in this case was a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion. On the papers submitted, sufficient proof was adduced that the plaintiff wife was constrained to borrow the $5,000 with which she retained counsel. The detailed affidavit submitted by counsel established the reasonableness of the fees incurred so far. In view of the fact that the husband has substantial assets, we see no reason to disturb the award of counsel fees which we are satisfied was necessary to enable the plaintiff to properly proceed within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 237. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on February 21, 1988, which, inter alia, awarded counsel fees pendente lite to the plaintiff in the amount of $10,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

We find that the award of counsel fees in this case was a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion. On the papers submitted, sufficient proof was adduced that the plaintiff wife was constrained to borrow the $5,000 with which she retained counsel. The detailed affidavit submitted by counsel established the reasonableness of the fees incurred so far. In view of the fact that the husband has substantial assets, we see no reason to disturb the award of counsel fees which we are satisfied was necessary to enable the plaintiff to properly proceed within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 237. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 189, 548 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-weber-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack