Voorham v. Hicks-Voorham

2025 NY Slip Op 05329

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 365492/22; Appeal No. 4813; Case No. 2025-01616
• Status: Published

Opinion

Voorham v Hicks-Voorham (2025 NY Slip Op 05329)

Voorham v Hicks-Voorham

2025 NY Slip Op 05329

Decided on October 02, 2025

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: October 02, 2025
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Friedman, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, Chan, JJ.

Index No. 365492/22|Appeal No. 4813|Case No. 2025-01616|

[*1]Markus A. Voorham, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Vanessa H. Hicks-Voorham, Defendant-Respondent.

Berkman Bottger Newman & Schein, LLP, New York (John Teufel of counsel), for appellant.

Cohen Clair Lans Greifer & Simpson LLP, New York (Robert Stephan Cohn of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael L. Katz, J.), entered March 3, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant wife's motion for interim attorneys' fees in the amount of $750,000, subject to reallocation after a trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding $750,000 in interim attorneys' fees to the wife, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, including the nature and complexity of the issues raised (see Domestic Relations Law §§ 237[a]; 238; see also DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; Wolinsky v Berkowitz, 227 AD3d 433, 434 [1st Dept 2024]). The parties' respective incomes and access to funds, the qualifications of the wife's attorneys, the significant length of time the wife had already spent unsuccessfully attempting to obtain discovery from the husband, and the court's prior finding that the husband was the monied spouse pendente lite all support the amount awarded. Additionally, the court properly considered the fact that the husband had engaged in dilatory conduct and taken positions resulting in a delay of the proceedings and unnecessary litigation (see Bloom v Hilpert, 222 AD3d 574, 576 [1st Dept 2023]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61, 64 [2d Dept 2008]).

We have considered the husband's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 2, 2025