From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Salk v. Salk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 1977
57 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

April 14, 1977


Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 28, 1976, which awarded plaintiff wife a counsel fee in the sum of $500, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs and without disbursements. The question of a counsel fee arose out of a motion made by plaintiff with respect to the interpretation of the visitation provisions set forth in the judgment of divorce entered December 12, 1975. Special Term awarded a counsel fee in the motion as "an act of grace, since only on the most technical reasoning can she even be considered as having prevailed on her application." In awarding a counsel fee the merits of the action are among the factors to be considered (Wood v Wood, 21 A.D.2d 627, 630). A review of the record demonstrates that the application brought by plaintiff regarding visitation rights was frivolous and that there was no failure on the part of defendant to meet his obligations under the provisions of the divorce judgment. Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proving facts showing a necessity for the motion, a vital factor in determining whether a counsel fee award was warranted (People ex rel. Foussier v Uzielli, 23 A.D.2d 260, 265).

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Birns, Silverman and Capozzoli, JJ.


Summaries of

Salk v. Salk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 1977
57 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

Salk v. Salk

Case Details

Full title:KERSTIN SALK Respondent, v. LEE SALK, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 14, 1977

Citations

57 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Stern v. Stern

In awarding counsel fees, Special Term relied, in part, on subdivision (a) of section 237 Dom. Rel. of the…

Robinson v. Robinson

It will not be constrained to direct full payment by respondent as would be the case if relief was granted on…