Wolf v. Wolf

146 A.D.2d 527, 536 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 475
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 24, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 146 A.D.2d 527 (Wolf v. Wolf) 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
Wolf v. Wolf, 146 A.D.2d 527, 536 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered March 3, 1988, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff wife interim counsel fees in the sum of $20,000, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of striking the award of interim counsel fees with leave to renew application for same, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

It was error for the court below to have granted plaintiff’s motion for interim counsel fees in the sum of $20,000. Domestic Relations Law § 237 (a) provides for an award of counsel fees or litigation expenses on an interim basis, in advance of final judgment, upon a showing that the award is required "to enable the petitioning party to properly proceed.”

In the within matter, plaintiff made an application for counsel fees a mere six weeks after retaining counsel, and after paying her counsel $10,000. In support of her application, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from her attorney. Although the affidavit states that counsel’s firm has incurred thousands of dollars in time charges and disbursements, it fails to detail the services rendered, how much of the retainer [528]*528fee has already been used, or the hourly rate of counsel and her associates.

Upon this record, we find that plaintiff has failed to adequately substantiate her claim that she is in need of such a large award at this stage of the litigation. Of course, plaintiff can make a further application when and if the need arises (see, Levy v Levy, 140 AD2d 210; Goldberg v Goldberg, 76 AD2d 776), and the court may properly grant her application when it has before it the requisite information to substantiate an award. Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

Mimran v. Mimran
83 A.D.3d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Charpié v. Charpié
300 A.D.2d 143 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Bernstein v. Bernstein
213 A.D.2d 508 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Loewentheil v. Loewentheil
197 A.D.2d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Wolf v. Wolf
160 A.D.2d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 A.D.2d 527, 536 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-wolf-nyappdiv-1989.