green
Positive treatment
2.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
GALLAGHER, ELLEN J. v. GALLAGHER, EDWARD R.
The court properly considered, inter alia, “the financial circumstances of both parties . . . [and] the existence of any dilatory or obstructionist conduct” (id.; see Johnson v Chapin, 12 NY3d 461, 467 [2009], rearg denied 13 NY3d 888 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
SWETT, ALLEN J. v. SWETT, SHERYL A.
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding counsel fees to plaintiff in light of the “dilatory or obstructionist conduct” by defendant (Blake v Blake [appeal No. 1], 83 AD3d 1509 [2011]; see Johnson v Chapin, 12 NY3d 461, 467 [2009], rearg denied 13 NY3d 888 [2009]; see also McBride-Head v Head, 23 AD3d 1010, 1011 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JANET M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellant,
v.
ALLAN M. CHAPIN, Appellant-Respondent.
v.
ALLAN M. CHAPIN, Appellant-Respondent.
Motion No: 2009-1139.
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 15, 2009.
921 N.E.2d 602
Lippman Taking No Part.
Published
Chief Judge LIPPMAN taking no part.
[*889] Motion for reargument denied [see 12 NY3d 461 (2009)].