From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cromer v. Cromer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 3, 2000
274 A.D.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted May 31, 2000.

July 3, 2000.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered May 4, 1998, the defendant former husband appeals from (1) so much of an amended judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), entered August 23, 1999, as directed him to pay the plaintiff the sum of $17,066, as an attorney's fee, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Parga, J.), entered January 19, 2000, which, on the issue of an attorney's fee, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $17,066.

Carlucci Legum, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert J. Carlucci of counsel), for appellant.

Beck, Salvi, Gewurz Strauss, PLLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Leland Stuart Beck of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly directed the defendant to pay to the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the principal sum of $17,066 (see, Webbe v. Webbe, 267 A.D.2d 764; Flanagan v. Flanagan, 267 A.D.2d 80).


Summaries of

Cromer v. Cromer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 3, 2000
274 A.D.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Cromer v. Cromer

Case Details

Full title:LAURA CROMER, RESPONDENT, v. THOMAS CROMER, APPELLANT

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 3, 2000

Citations

274 A.D.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 894

Citing Cases

Richard M. Gordon Assoc., P.C. v. Rascio

The common thread running through New York's Appellate Courts relaxation of the Sec. 1403.3 regulation via a…

Mulcahy v. Mulcahy

An attorney is precluded from seeking fees from his or her client where the attorney has failed to comply…