Plawner v. Plawner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Plawner v. Plawner

208 A.D.2d 408, 617 N.Y.S.2d 172

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 408 (Plawner v. Plawner) 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

Plawner v. Plawner, 208 A.D.2d 408, 617 N.Y.S.2d 172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about September 28, 1993, which made a second award of interim counsel fees to plaintiff wife in the amount of $10,000, after having previously awarded her interim counsel fees of $7,500, without prejudice to an application for additional sums, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of interim attorney fees is a matter committed to the exercise of the sound discretion of Supreme Court (Guttman v Guttman, 129 AD2d 537, 538; Ahern v Ahern, 94 AD2d 53, 58). Given the disparity in income and resources of the parties, Supreme Court appropriately awarded additional interim counsel fees in order to allow plaintiff to expeditiously litigate this action (Maharam v Maharam, 177 AD2d 262, 264-265). The additional interim fees will be taken into account in determining the amount of the equitable distribution award (supra), at which time defendant will have ample opportunity to raise any objection as to necessity or amount of the sums expended (Davis v Davis, 128 AD2d 470, 479-480). We repeat our observation that the proper remedy for asserted unfairness in making a pendente lite award is an expeditious trial (Cvern v Cvern, 198 AD2d 197, 198; Marksohn v Marksohn, 198 AD2d 70). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about September 28, 1993, which made a second award of interim counsel fees to plaintiff wife in the amount of $10,000, after having previously awarded her interim counsel fees of $7,500, without prejudice to an application for additional sums, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of interim attorney fees is a matter committed to the exercise of the sound discretion of Supreme Court (Guttman v Guttman, 129 AD2d 537, 538; Ahern v Ahern, 94 AD2d 53, 58). Given the disparity in income and resources of the parties, Supreme Court appropriately awarded additional interim counsel fees in order to allow plaintiff to expeditiously litigate this action (Maharam v Maharam, 177 AD2d 262, 264-265). The additional interim fees will be taken into account in determining the amount of the equitable distribution award (supra), at which time defendant will have ample opportunity to raise any objection as to necessity or amount of the sums expended (Davis v Davis, 128 AD2d 470, 479-480). We repeat our observation that the proper remedy for asserted unfairness in making a pendente lite award is an expeditious trial (Cvern v Cvern, 198 AD2d 197, 198; Marksohn v Marksohn, 198 AD2d 70). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 408, 617 N.Y.S.2d 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plawner-v-plawner-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack