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

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

DecidedApril 4, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 360 (Zema v. Zema) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 360, 791 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zema-v-zema-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack