D'Angio v. D'Angio

2019 NY Slip Op 3024
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 24, 2019
DocketIndex No. 27916/12
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 3024 (D'Angio v. D'Angio) 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
D'Angio v. D'Angio, 2019 NY Slip Op 3024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

D'Angio v D'Angio (2019 NY Slip Op 03024)
D'Angio v D'Angio
2019 NY Slip Op 03024
Decided on April 24, 2019
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on April 24, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P.
SHERI S. ROMAN
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

2017-00004
(Index No. 27916/12)

[*1]Nicole D'Angio, appellant,

v

Anthony D'Angio, respondent.


Winkler, Kurtz, Winkler, Fellin, Hake & O'Hanlon, LLP, Port Jefferson Station, NY (Lindsey Albinski of counsel), for appellant.

Long Tuminello, LLP, Bay Shore, NY (Brittany A. Fiorenza of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Carol Mackenzie, J.), entered October 25, 2016. The judgment of divorce, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of the same court dated March 21, 2016, awarded the plaintiff counsel fees in the sum of only $2,500.

ORDERED that the judgment of divorce is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by increasing the award of counsel fees to the plaintiff from the sum of $2,500 to the sum of $15,000; as so modified, the judgment of divorce is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The parties were married in 1995 and have three children. The plaintiff commenced this action in 2013 for a divorce and ancillary relief. In 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, pursuant to which the plaintiff reserved the right to make an application for counsel fees. Thereafter, she made an application for counsel fees, which the defendant opposed. On October 25, 2016, the Supreme Court entered a judgment of divorce which, inter alia, upon an order dated March 21, 2016, awarded the plaintiff counsel fees in the sum of $2,500. The plaintiff appeals from that portion of the judgment of divorce.

An award of counsel fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(a) is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the issue "is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case" (Morrissey v Morrissey, 259 AD2d 472, 473; see Patete v Rodriguez, 109 AD3d 595; Chaudry v Chaudry, 95 AD3d 1058, 1059). In determining whether to award counsel fees, the court should review the financial circumstances of the parties and the circumstances of the case as a whole, which may include the relative merit of the parties' positions and whether either party has engaged in conduct or taken positions resulting in a delay of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation (see Odermatt v Odermatt, 119 AD3d 754; Mueller v Mueller, 113 AD3d 660; Guzzo v Guzzo, 110 AD3d 765; Patete v Rodriguez, 109 AD3d 595; Formica v Formica, 101 AD3d 805, 807). This Court's discretionary authority to award counsel fees is as broad as that of the trial court (see Cohen v Cohen, 160 AD3d 804, 806).

Here, considering the equities and circumstances of the case, and in particular the disparity in the parties' income, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff counsel fees in the sum of only $2,500 (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a]; Haspel v Haspel, 78 AD3d 887, 892; Peritore v Peritore, 50 AD3d 874, 875). Accordingly, the award of counsel fees to the plaintiff should be increased to the sum of $15,000.

LEVENTHAL, J.P., ROMAN, MALTESE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Odermatt v. Odermatt
119 A.D.3d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Peritore v. Peritore
50 A.D.3d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Haspel v. Haspel
78 A.D.3d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Chaudry v. Chaudry
95 A.D.3d 1058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Formica v. Formica
101 A.D.3d 805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Patete v. Rodriguez
109 A.D.3d 595 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Guzzo v. Guzzo
110 A.D.3d 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Mueller v. Mueller
113 A.D.3d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Morrissey v. Morrissey
259 A.D.2d 472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 3024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dangio-v-dangio-nyappdiv-2019.