Gralnick v. Bergier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gralnick v. Bergier

286 A.D.2d 369, 728 N.Y.S.2d 708, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8017

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

DecidedAugust 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 369 (Gralnick v. Bergier) 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

Gralnick v. Bergier, 286 A.D.2d 369, 728 N.Y.S.2d 708, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Ambrosio, J.), dated April 12, 2000, which, after a hearing, awarded her an attorney’s fee in the sum of only $5,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A court may award an attorney’s fee in a divorce action “to enable [a] spouse to carry on or defend the action dr proceedings as, in the court’s discretion, justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties” (Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881). In exercising its discretion, a court is to consider the financial circumstances of the parties and the merits of the parties’ positions (see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, supra, at 881).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in determining the amount of the attorney’s fee awarded to her in light of her counsel’s skill, experience, and the time he spent on the case, as well as the nature of the services rendered, and the difficulty of the issues involved (see, Pauk v Pauk, 232 AD2d 386, 391). S. Miller, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Ambrosio, J.), dated April 12, 2000, which, after a hearing, awarded her an attorney’s fee in the sum of only $5,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A court may award an attorney’s fee in a divorce action “to enable [a] spouse to carry on or defend the action dr proceedings as, in the court’s discretion, justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties” (Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881). In exercising its discretion, a court is to consider the financial circumstances of the parties and the merits of the parties’ positions (see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, supra, at 881).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in determining the amount of the attorney’s fee awarded to her in light of her counsel’s skill, experience, and the time he spent on the case, as well as the nature of the services rendered, and the difficulty of the issues involved (see, Pauk v Pauk, 232 AD2d 386, 391). S. Miller, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 369, 728 N.Y.S.2d 708, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gralnick-v-bergier-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack