Sandel v. Sandel
| Decision Date | 25 July 1983 |
| Citation | 465 N.Y.S.2d 542,96 A.D.2d 584 |
| Parties | Elaine SANDEL, Appellant-Respondent, v. Maurice SANDEL, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lester A. Lazarus, New York City (Bethany A. Ralph, New York City, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Klein & Klein, Suffern (David M. Klein, Suffern, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and WEINSTEIN, BROWN and RUBIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals (1) as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered October 7, 1981, as was against her and in favor of defendant in the sum of $12,648.68 on defendant's counterclaim for conversion and directed her to pay $4,500 toward defendant's counsel fees, and (2) from an order of the same court, entered January 5, 1983, which directed resettlement of the judgment entered October 7, 1981, so as to provide that defendant has an unexpirable option to purchase plaintiff's interest in the marital premises for the agreed upon price, and defendant appeals from an order of the same court, entered July 22, 1982, which denied his motion to vacate a prior interlocutory judgment of the same court directing a referee to sell the marital home and divide the proceeds equally between the parties.
Judgment entered October 7, 1981, modified, by deleting the eighth decretal paragraph thereof. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
Order entered January 5, 1983 reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, and, upon defendant's motion to amend the judgment entered October 7, 1981, said judgment is amended to provide that the separation agreement afforded defendant only six months from the date of the parties' separation to exercise his option to purchase plaintiff's interest in the marital premises at the agreed upon price.
Order entered July 22, 1982 affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is apparent that the court, in making the award of a counsel fee, did not distinguish between those services rendered in connection with the matrimonial causes of action and those rendered in connection with the nonmatrimonial causes of action such as the action for conversion. This court has repeatedly held that counsel fees are not recoverable on a nonmatrimonial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucci v. Lucci
...and to set aside the transfer of certain of the husband's assets, for which counsel fees are not recoverable (see, Sandel v. Sandel, 96 A.D.2d 584, 584-585, 465 N.Y.S.2d 542). We therefore remit the matter to the Supreme Court to establish an appropriate award for counsel fees upon such fur......
-
Marciano v. Marciano
...Relations Law §237 does not apply. (See, Fine v. Fine, 26 A.D.3d 406, 810 N.Y.S.2d 211 (2d Dept. 2006); Sandel v. Sandel, 96 A.D.2d 584, 465 N.Y.S.2d 542 (2d Dept. 1983)). The parties shall appear for a Preliminary Conference on December 20, 2011, at 9:30 A.M. in the Differentiated Case Man......
-
Anonymous v. Anonymous
...with (1) an attack on the parties' prenuptial agreement (see, Lucci v. Lucci, 227 A.D.2d 387, 642 N.Y.S.2d 326; Sandel v. Sandel, 96 A.D.2d 584, 465 N.Y.S.2d 542; Lamborn v. Lamborn, 56 A.D.2d 623, 391 N.Y.S.2d 679), (2) work performed in a prior 1993 Westchester County action involving the......