From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Math v. Math

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1967
28 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Opinion

June 26, 1967


Order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 9, 1967, modified by (1) striking from the decretal provisions (a) the direction that the question of counsel fee on plaintiff's appeal (from the judgment) is referred to this court and (b) the words "printing the record" and (2) substituting for said three words the following: "reproducing the record or plaintiff's appendix by offset printing or mimeographing." As so modified, order affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements to respondent. In our opinion, the order should have required defendant to pay the cost of offset printing or mimeographing on plaintiff's appeal (see, CPLR 5528, 5529; Rules of App. Div. 2d Dept., part I, rule I, subd. [3]), instead of the higher cost of printing. We have not reviewed the question of a counsel fee for plaintiff for the prosecution of her pending appeal from the judgment. That question should be determined at Special Term. Brennan, Acting P.J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Nolan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Math v. Math

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1967
28 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)
Case details for

Math v. Math

Case Details

Full title:RUTH MATH, Respondent, v. HOWARD N. MATH, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 26, 1967

Citations

28 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Citing Cases

Carlo v. Carlo

Order affirmed, with $25 costs and dsibursements. The allowance granted rested within the discretionary power…