Opinion
2019–06610 Index No. 2175/12
04-05-2023
Stacee LIEBERMAN-MASSONI, respondent, v. John MASSONI, appellant.
Joseph R. Miano, White Plains, NY, for appellant. Hasapidis Law Offices, South Salem, NY (Annette G. Hasapidis of counsel), for respondent.
Joseph R. Miano, White Plains, NY, for appellant.
Hasapidis Law Offices, South Salem, NY (Annette G. Hasapidis of counsel), for respondent.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., ANGELA G. IANNACCI, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gretchen Walsh, J.), dated April 30, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, awarded the plaintiff the sum of $716,931.50 in attorney's fees and the sum of $72,110 in expert fees.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
1"An award of a reasonable attorney's fee is within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court based upon such factors as the time and labor required, the difficulty of the issues involved, the skill required to handle the matter, and the effectiveness of the legal work performed" (Rodriguez v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 171 A.D.3d 963, 964, 97 N.Y.S.3d 702 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
234"It is within the Supreme Court's sound discretion to determine whether a particular witness is qualified to testify as an expert, and its determination will not be disturbed in the absence of serious mistake, an error of law, or an improvident exercise of discretion" (de Hernandez v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 46 A.D.3d 517, 517–518, 850 N.Y.S.2d 460 ). "An expert is qualified to proffer an opinion if he or she possesses ‘the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience to render a reliable opinion’ " (Formica v. Formica, 101 A.D.3d 805, 806, 957 N.Y.S.2d 149, quoting Pignataro v. Galarzia, 303 A.D.2d 667, 668, 757 N.Y.S.2d 76 ). "The competence of an expert in a particular subject may derive from long observation and real world experience, and is not dependent upon formal training or attainment of an academic degree in the subject" (Miele v. American Tobacco Co., 2 A.D.3d 799, 802, 770 N.Y.S.2d 386 ).
5 Here, contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the plaintiff the sum of $716,931.50 in attorney's fees and the sum of $72,110 in expert fees, which are 70% of the amount determined by the court to be the reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and expert fees incurred by the plaintiff (see e.g. Klein v. Klein, 178 A.D.3d 802, 116 N.Y.S.3d 92 ; Vistocco v. Jardine, 116 A.D.3d 842, 844, 985 N.Y.S.2d 578 ; see Lieberman–Massoni v. Massoni, ––– A.D.3d ––––, 186 N.Y.S.3d 336 [Appellate Division Docket No. 2019–02938] ; decided herewith).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit.
DUFFY, J.P., IANNACCI, RIVERA and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Motion by the respondent, inter alia, to strike stated portions of the appellant's brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 30, 2019, on the ground that they refer to matter dehors the record, and to strike Point IV of the appellant's brief on the ground that it raises issues not properly before this Court. By decision and order on motion dated August 17, 2020, those branches of the motion were held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is
ORDERED that those branches of the motion which are to strike stated portions of the appellant's brief on the ground that they refer to matter dehors the record, and to strike Point IV of the appellant's brief on the ground that it raises issues not properly before this Court are denied.