Bergstein v. Bergstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bergstein v. Bergstein

223 A.D.2d 505, 637 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 708

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bergstein v. Bergstein. Read the opinion of the Court — 207 A.D.2d 285 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 30, 1996·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered April 14, 1995, which awarded plaintiff an additional interim attorney’s fee of $40,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly awarded the additional interim fees during the trial of this action (see, Hinden v Hinden, 122 Misc 2d 552, 559) "to provide a rough equality in the resources available to each party” (Wolf v Wolf, 160 AD2d 555, 556, citing Hinden v Hinden, supra), especially where defendant’s obstructionist conduct prolonged the litigation (Merrick v Merrick, 190 AD2d 515, 516). "The additional interim fees will be taken into account in determining the amount of the equitable distribution award * * * at which time defendant will have ample opportunity to raise any objection as to necessity or amount of the sums expended.” (Plawner v Plawner, 208 AD2d 408.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered April 14, 1995, which awarded plaintiff an additional interim attorney’s fee of $40,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly awarded the additional interim fees during the trial of this action (see, Hinden v Hinden, 122 Misc 2d 552, 559) "to provide a rough equality in the resources available to each party” (Wolf v Wolf, 160 AD2d 555, 556, citing Hinden v Hinden, supra), especially where defendant’s obstructionist conduct prolonged the litigation (Merrick v Merrick, 190 AD2d 515, 516). "The additional interim fees will be taken into account in determining the amount of the equitable distribution award * * * at which time defendant will have ample opportunity to raise any objection as to necessity or amount of the sums expended.” (Plawner v Plawner, 208 AD2d 408.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Bergstein v. Bergstein, 223 A.D.2d 505, 637 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

223 A.D.2d 505 (Bergstein v. Bergstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related