Sutaria v. Sutaria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sutaria v. Sutaria

123 A.D.3d 908, 999 N.Y.S.2d 139

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2014

Docket2012-08820

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 908 (Sutaria v. Sutaria) 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

Sutaria v. Sutaria, 123 A.D.3d 908, 999 N.Y.S.2d 139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated July 2, 2012, as granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for an award of counsel fees to the extent of awarding her the sum of $73,602.46.

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

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (a), an award of counsel fees “is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the issue ‘is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case’ ” (Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61, 64 [2008], quoting Morrissey v Morrissey, 259 AD2d 472, 473 [1999]; see Mueller v Mueller, 113 AD3d 660 [2014]; Carr-Harris v Carr-Harris, 98 AD3d 548, 552 [2012]). In determining whether to award counsel fees, the court should “review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties’ positions” (DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; see Guzzo v Guzzo, 110 AD3d 765, 766 [2013]; Matter of Baribault v Sauvola, 101 AD3d 865, 866 [2012]; Ciampa v Ciampa, 47 AD3d 745, 748 [2008]). The court may also consider whether either party has engaged in conduct or taken positions resulting in delays of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation (see Guzzo v Guzzo, 110 AD3d at 766; Khan v Ahmed, 98 AD3d 471, 473 [2012]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d at 64; Ciampa v Ciampa, 47 AD3d at 748).

Here, considering all of the relevant circumstances, the *909 Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff counsel fees in the sum of $73,602.46. There is a significant income disparity between the parties, and the defendant’s conduct throughout these proceedings unnecessarily delayed the litigation (see Mueller v Mueller, 113 AD3d 660, 661 [2014]; Guzzo v Guzzo, 110 AD3d at 765-766; Peritore v Peritore, 50 AD3d 874, 875 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Barros, 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 defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated July 2, 2012, as granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for an award of counsel fees to the extent of awarding her the sum of $73,602.46.

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

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (a), an award of counsel fees “is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the issue ‘is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case’ ” (Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61, 64 [2008], quoting Morrissey v Morrissey, 259 AD2d 472, 473 [1999]; see Mueller v Mueller, 113 AD3d 660 [2014]; Carr-Harris v Carr-Harris, 98 AD3d 548, 552 [2012]). In determining whether to award counsel fees, the court should “review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties’ positions” (DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; see Guzzo v Guzzo, 110 AD3d 765, 766 [2013]; Matter of Baribault v Sauvola, 101 AD3d 865, 866 [2012]; Ciampa v Ciampa, 47 AD3d 745, 748 [2008]). The court may also consider whether either party has engaged in conduct or taken positions resulting in delays of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation (see Guzzo v Guzzo, 110 AD3d at 766; Khan v Ahmed, 98 AD3d 471, 473 [2012]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d at 64; Ciampa v Ciampa, 47 AD3d at 748).

Here, considering all of the relevant circumstances, the *909 Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff counsel fees in the sum of $73,602.46. There is a significant income disparity between the parties, and the defendant’s conduct throughout these proceedings unnecessarily delayed the litigation (see Mueller v Mueller, 113 AD3d 660, 661 [2014]; Guzzo v Guzzo, 110 AD3d at 765-766; Peritore v Peritore, 50 AD3d 874, 875 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 908, 999 N.Y.S.2d 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutaria-v-sutaria-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack