From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 10, 2002
297 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-10819

Submitted April 2, 2002.

September 10, 2002.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant's former attorney appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated October 16, 2001, as denied his motion, inter alia, for an award of an attorney's fee and a charging lien against the plaintiff.

David M. Ettinger, Atlantic Beach, N.Y., nonparty-appellant pro se.

Steven Gottlieb, Great Neck, N.Y., respondent pro se.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion, inter alia, for an award of an attorney's fee and a charging lien against the plaintiff (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a]; O'Shea v. O'Shea, 93 N.Y.2d 187), based on its prior award of various interim attorney's fees and its determination that the defendant was disproportionately responsible for the unduly contentious and protracted nature of the proceedings (see e.g. Walker v. Walker, 255 A.D.2d 375; Love v. Love, 250 A.D.2d 739).

RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 10, 2002
297 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN GOTTLIEB, respondent, v. ARLENE GOTTLIEB, defendant; DAVID M…

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

Date published: Sep 10, 2002

Citations

297 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
746 N.Y.S.2d 904

Citing Cases

Humes v. Humes

Here, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to set aside the…

Chamberlain v. Chamberlain

We note in doing so, however, that the plaintiff's argument that such income stream should similarly have…