Petrov v. Basheva-Petrova

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Petrov v. Basheva-Petrova

46 A.D.3d 791, 847 N.Y.S.2d 464

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 18, 2007·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from stated portions of an order [792] of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), dated April 25, 2006, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed him to pay the defendant pendente lite maintenance in the amount of $900 per month and an interim attorney’s fee in the sum of $10,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We decline to disturb the award to the defendant of pendente lite maintenance as it was a proper accommodation between the reasonable needs of the defendant and the financial ability of the plaintiff (see Stubbs v Stubbs, 41 AD3d 832, 833 [2007]; Barone v Barone, 41 AD3d 623, 624 [2007]; Iwanow v Iwanow, 39 AD3d 471, 472 [2007]).

In light of the financial disparity between the parties, the award of an interim attorney’s fee was a provident exercise of the court’s discretion (see Stubbs v Stubbs, 41 AD3d 832 [2007]; Cooper v Cooper, 32 AD3d 376, 377 [2006]; Singer v Singer, 16 AD3d 666, 667 [2005]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, 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 stated portions of an order [792] of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), dated April 25, 2006, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed him to pay the defendant pendente lite maintenance in the amount of $900 per month and an interim attorney’s fee in the sum of $10,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We decline to disturb the award to the defendant of pendente lite maintenance as it was a proper accommodation between the reasonable needs of the defendant and the financial ability of the plaintiff (see Stubbs v Stubbs, 41 AD3d 832, 833 [2007]; Barone v Barone, 41 AD3d 623, 624 [2007]; Iwanow v Iwanow, 39 AD3d 471, 472 [2007]).

In light of the financial disparity between the parties, the award of an interim attorney’s fee was a provident exercise of the court’s discretion (see Stubbs v Stubbs, 41 AD3d 832 [2007]; Cooper v Cooper, 32 AD3d 376, 377 [2006]; Singer v Singer, 16 AD3d 666, 667 [2005]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Petrov v. Basheva-Petrova, 46 A.D.3d 791, 847 N.Y.S.2d 464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

46 A.D.3d 791 (Petrov v. Basheva-Petrova) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related