DocketNumber: No. FA 00-0725148
Judges: ROBAINA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/27/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
That the decision does not include any order of security for the payment of alimony. The court had considered that claim in the original judgment and now as presented anew. While the provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes §
The plaintiff also argues that the decision did not include orders regarding payment of counsel fees and expert witness fees. The court did review its own orders and the requests made. The court had considered the fact that the plaintiff had incurred substantial attorneys fees and expert witness fees in the preparation and trial of this matter. Those fees were factored into the overall decision with respect to the property division, alimony and other relief. The court declined to make a specific award of counsel fees and does so again now.
Accordingly, the motion to reargue having been granted and heard, the court declines to change the judgment from its original terms.
CT Page 2905-aiBY THE COURT Antonio C. Robaina, J.
[EDITORS' NOTE: This page is blank.] CT Page 2905-aj