Charles v. Charles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Charles v. Charles

254 A.D.2d 47, 679 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10039

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 6, 1998·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered June 26, 1997, which directed plaintiff-husband to pay $155,000 in counsel fees to defendant’s attorney, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[48]*48The award of counsel fees in this matrimonial action was amply justified by the financial circumstances of the parties, as well as by the substantial motion and appellate practice that has already occurred in this matrimonial action (see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881). The fee award was supported by adequate documentation, and the court properly found the legal services to be compensable pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (see, Wyser-Pratte v Wyser-Pratte, 160 AD2d 290). We find nothing in the parties’ prenuptial agreement that precludes defendant from obtaining such interim attorney’s fees.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, 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 (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered June 26, 1997, which directed plaintiff-husband to pay $155,000 in counsel fees to defendant’s attorney, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[48]*48The award of counsel fees in this matrimonial action was amply justified by the financial circumstances of the parties, as well as by the substantial motion and appellate practice that has already occurred in this matrimonial action (see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881). The fee award was supported by adequate documentation, and the court properly found the legal services to be compensable pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (see, Wyser-Pratte v Wyser-Pratte, 160 AD2d 290). We find nothing in the parties’ prenuptial agreement that precludes defendant from obtaining such interim attorney’s fees.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Charles v. Charles, 254 A.D.2d 47, 679 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

254 A.D.2d 47 (Charles v. Charles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related