Petrov v. Basheva-Petrova
This text of 46 A.D.3d 791 (Petrov v. Basheva-Petrova) 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.
Opinion
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from stated portions of an order [792]*792of 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
46 A.D.3d 791, 847 N.Y.S.2d 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petrov-v-basheva-petrova-nyappdiv-2007.