From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zema v. Zema

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 4, 2005
17 A.D.3d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-05322.

April 4, 2005.

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.

Leonard R. Sperber, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.

Gassman Keidel, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Richard J. Keidel of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.


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; Amodio v. Amodio, 122 AD2d 757, affd 70 NY2d 5) in light of the separate property which she retained, the marital property distributed to her, the maintenance awarded, and the plaintiff's 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.


Summaries of

Zema v. Zema

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 4, 2005
17 A.D.3d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Zema v. Zema

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL ZEMA, Respondent, v. SHELAH T. ZEMA, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 4, 2005

Citations

17 A.D.3d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
791 N.Y.S.2d 844

Citing Cases

Mesholam v. Mesholam

We also conclude that the Supreme Court's award of counsel fees to the wife was an improvident exercise of…

Lomaglio v. Lomaglio

In S.P. v. F.O., 20 Misc.3d 1104(A), 2008 WL 2468557 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty. 2008), the court set out other…