AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

RUTH MATH, Respondent, v. HOWARD N. MATH, Appellant.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATH v. MATH
(Jun 26, 1967)