Zema v. Zema

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zema v. Zema

17 A.D.3d 360, 791 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3548

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 4, 2005·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.) dated May 18, 2004, which denied her motion for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee (see Mendenhall v Mendenhall, 4 AD3d 344 [2004]; Amodio v Amodio, 122 AD2d 757 [1986], affd 70 NY2d 5 [1987]) in light of the separate property which she retained, the marital property distributed to her, the maintenance awarded, and the plaintiffs ongoing obligation for child support and other expenses for the parties’ two children pursuant to their settlement agreement, as well as the defendant’s income capacity.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.) dated May 18, 2004, which denied her motion for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee (see Mendenhall v Mendenhall, 4 AD3d 344 [2004]; Amodio v Amodio, 122 AD2d 757 [1986], affd 70 NY2d 5 [1987]) in light of the separate property which she retained, the marital property distributed to her, the maintenance awarded, and the plaintiffs ongoing obligation for child support and other expenses for the parties’ two children pursuant to their settlement agreement, as well as the defendant’s income capacity.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Zema v. Zema, 17 A.D.3d 360, 791 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

17 A.D.3d 360 (Zema v. Zema) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related