From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eisenstadt v. Eisenstadt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 2003
305 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-07790, 2002-08808

Submitted April 29, 2003.

May 19, 2003.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ross, J.), dated July 16, 2002, as denied her cross motion for an award of an attorney's fee and her motion for the court to recuse itself, and (2), as limited by her notice of appeal and by her reply brief, from so much of a judgment of the same court, entered September 13, 2002, as, upon the order, denied her an award of an attorney's fee.

Debbie Eisenstadt, Garden City, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Howard Eisenstadt, Plainview, N.Y., respondent pro se.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

After considering the equities and circumstances of the case and the financial positions of the parties, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's cross motion for an award of an attorney's fee (see Gagstetter v. Gagstetter, 283 A.D.2d 393).

The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in declining to recuse itself (see Saferstein v. Klein, 288 A.D.2d 206; Yannitelli v. Yannitelli Sons Constr. Corp., 247 A.D.2d 271, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 875, cert denied 525 U.S. 1178).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Eisenstadt v. Eisenstadt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 2003
305 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Eisenstadt v. Eisenstadt

Case Details

Full title:DEBBIE EISENSTADT, appellant, v. HOWARD EISENSTADT, respondent

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

Date published: May 19, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 352

Citing Cases

Polina v. Robert

Third, recusal is statutorily required when any of the factors set forth in Judiciary Law § 14 is found to…

Griggs v. Griggs

The award of attorney's and experts' fees to the defendant was an improvident exercise of discretion. While…