Stella v. Stella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stella v. Stella

16 A.D.3d 109, 791 N.Y.S.2d 20, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2059

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 1, 2005·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

[110] Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John E.H. Stackhouse, J), entered September 23, 2004, which awarded plaintiff pendente lite counsel and expert fees, plus interest, in the total amount of $227,726.33, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 3, 2004, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for interim attorney and expert fees, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the judgment.

Inasmuch as the record discloses that defendant husband has significantly greater financial resources at his disposal than plaintiff wife, and that defendant’s actions have caused protracted litigation, the court properly exercised its discretion in making the interim awards here at issue (see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; Papadopoulos v Papadopoulos, 301 AD2d 391 [2003]). We have considered defendant’s arguments to the contrary and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, EJ, Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[110] Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John E.H. Stackhouse, J), entered September 23, 2004, which awarded plaintiff pendente lite counsel and expert fees, plus interest, in the total amount of $227,726.33, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 3, 2004, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for interim attorney and expert fees, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the judgment.

Inasmuch as the record discloses that defendant husband has significantly greater financial resources at his disposal than plaintiff wife, and that defendant’s actions have caused protracted litigation, the court properly exercised its discretion in making the interim awards here at issue (see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; Papadopoulos v Papadopoulos, 301 AD2d 391 [2003]). We have considered defendant’s arguments to the contrary and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, EJ, Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

Stella v. Stella, 16 A.D.3d 109, 791 N.Y.S.2d 20, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

16 A.D.3d 109 (Stella v. Stella) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related