Gaffney-Romanello v. Romanello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gaffney-Romanello v. Romanello

82 A.D.3d 930, 918 N.Y.2d 736

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 930 (Gaffney-Romanello v. Romanello) 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

Gaffney-Romanello v. Romanello, 82 A.D.3d 930, 918 N.Y.2d 736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

“An award of interim counsel fees ensures that the nonmonied spouse will be able to litigate the action, and do so on equal footing with the monied spouse” (Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61, 65 [2008]; see O’Shea v O’Shea, 93 NY2d 187, 193 [1999]; Meltzer v Meltzer, 63 AD3d 702, 703 [2009]; Wald v Wald, 44 AD3d 848, 850 [2007]). Unlike a final award of counsel fees, a detailed inquiry or evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the award of interim counsel fees (see Isaacs v Isaacs, 71 AD3d 951 [2010]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d at 65). Here, based on the apparent disparity in the parties’ relative financial positions, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding interim counsel fees to the plaintiff (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Rosenbaum v Rosenbaum, 55 AD3d 713, 714 [2008]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d at 65-66).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

“An award of interim counsel fees ensures that the nonmonied spouse will be able to litigate the action, and do so on equal footing with the monied spouse” (Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61, 65 [2008]; see O’Shea v O’Shea, 93 NY2d 187, 193 [1999]; Meltzer v Meltzer, 63 AD3d 702, 703 [2009]; Wald v Wald, 44 AD3d 848, 850 [2007]). Unlike a final award of counsel fees, a detailed inquiry or evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the award of interim counsel fees (see Isaacs v Isaacs, 71 AD3d 951 [2010]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d at 65). Here, based on the apparent disparity in the parties’ relative financial positions, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding interim counsel fees to the plaintiff (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Rosenbaum v Rosenbaum, 55 AD3d 713, 714 [2008]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d at 65-66).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 930, 918 N.Y.2d 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaffney-romanello-v-romanello-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack