Legal Opinion

Ehrlich v. McKee

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided February 2, 1939PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The statement in Turner v. Woolworth (221 N. Y. 425) that where a counsel fee has been allowed in a matrimonial action, the sole remedy in order to obtain compensation for extra labor is to move to increase the allowance, has been held by this court not to apply to legal services rendered for the purpose of enforcing the final judgment. (Kommel v. Karron, 152 Misc. 294.) A fortiori, the statement does not apply to services rendered on an appeal to the Court of Appeals from a final judgment of the Appellate Division dismissing the wife’s complaint. Plaintiff’s assignor was, accordingly, under…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Turner v. . WoolworthNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  2. Elder v. . RosenwasserNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
  3. Kommel v. KarronAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1934

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ehrlich v. McKeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
  2. Krull v. CaldwellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
  3. Deitch v. DeitchNew York Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Paradise v. RidleyAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1940
  5. Stark v. ProcidaCity of New York Municipal Court · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API