Daich v. Daich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daich v. Daich

2017 NY Slip Op 6350, 153 A.D.3d 900, 61 N.Y.S.3d 119

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 30, 2017

Docket2015-08035

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6350 (Daich v. Daich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daich v. Daich, 2017 NY Slip Op 6350, 153 A.D.3d 900, 61 N.Y.S.3d 119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Barbara Irolla Panepinto, J.), dated May 28, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, *901 on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees is denied without prejudice to renewal upon compliance with 22 NYCRR 202.16 (k).

A party in a matrimonial action seeking an award of interim counsel fees must include, in his or her moving papers, a sworn statement of net worth (see 22 NYCRR 202.16 [k]). The proper course where a party fails to include the statement of net worth required pursuant to the above rule is “to decline to hear the motion, or to deny it without prejudice to renewal upon compliance with the applicable requirements” (Matter of Fischer-Holland v Walker, 12 AD3d 671, 672 [2004] [citation omitted]; see 22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [5] [ii]). Here, the plaintiff failed to provide a statement of net worth in support of that branch of her motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, her claim that the Supreme Court was in possession of a copy of her statement of net worth is insufficient to meet the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.16 (k), especially where, as here, the court did not indicate, in the order awarding interim counsel fees, that it had considered the plaintiff’s statement of net worth or the parties’ financial circumstances. Accordingly, the court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees (see 22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [2], [5] [ii]; Bertone v Bertone, 15 AD3d 326 [2005]; Matter of Fischer-Holland v Walker, 12 AD3d at 672).

The defendant’s remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination.

Leventhal, J.R, LaSalle, Brathwaite Nelson and Christopher, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Barbara Irolla Panepinto, J.), dated May 28, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, *901 on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees is denied without prejudice to renewal upon compliance with 22 NYCRR 202.16 (k).

A party in a matrimonial action seeking an award of interim counsel fees must include, in his or her moving papers, a sworn statement of net worth (see 22 NYCRR 202.16 [k]). The proper course where a party fails to include the statement of net worth required pursuant to the above rule is “to decline to hear the motion, or to deny it without prejudice to renewal upon compliance with the applicable requirements” (Matter of Fischer-Holland v Walker, 12 AD3d 671, 672 [2004] [citation omitted]; see 22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [5] [ii]). Here, the plaintiff failed to provide a statement of net worth in support of that branch of her motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, her claim that the Supreme Court was in possession of a copy of her statement of net worth is insufficient to meet the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.16 (k), especially where, as here, the court did not indicate, in the order awarding interim counsel fees, that it had considered the plaintiff’s statement of net worth or the parties’ financial circumstances. Accordingly, the court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees (see 22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [2], [5] [ii]; Bertone v Bertone, 15 AD3d 326 [2005]; Matter of Fischer-Holland v Walker, 12 AD3d at 672).

The defendant’s remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination.

Leventhal, J.R, LaSalle, Brathwaite Nelson and Christopher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6350, 153 A.D.3d 900, 61 N.Y.S.3d 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daich-v-daich-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack