From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fisher v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 18, 1994
208 A.D.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 18, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.).


Domestic Relations Law § 237 authorizes an award of interim counsel fees to enable the other spouse to carry on or to defend the action, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties (Wolf v. Wolf, 160 A.D.2d 555, 556). While it is true that a party may be awarded interim counsel fees even when the party possesses his or her own assets (Koerner v Koerner, 170 A.D.2d 297, 298), here defendant wife has made "no showing at this time that [she] is unable to meet the cost of her counsel fees" (Sharwell v. Sharwell, 155 A.D.2d 434, 435).

Defendant receives from plaintiff $1,500 per week in tax free temporary maintenance, as well as payment of "all carrying charges, taxes, interest, insurance and utilities" for the marital residence, which only she inhabits, and all "appropriate" insurance policies for her. Defendant listed in her net worth statement the amount of $220,000 in "Bank checks payable to [her]". Although the status of these funds is unclear, she does not deny that they are liquid funds. She lists no significant liabilities in her net worth statement. Plaintiff was able to show in his motion papers that defendant was financially comfortable enough to refrain from negotiating his support checks, totaling $34,000, for eight months.

Even assuming that her total life savings amount to the $220,000 figure cited, defendant's projected legal bills can easily be covered. Her lawyer submitted an affidavit stating that her total fees for this divorce case will be about $100,000, based on work already performed and on estimates of work remaining. Defendant had already paid a $25,000 retainer; the remaining estimated $75,000 will not drain her "life savings".

Should future circumstances dictate that an award of fees would be appropriate, defendant is free to move for such relief "by one or more orders from time to time before final judgment" (Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Fisher v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 18, 1994
208 A.D.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Fisher v. Fisher

Case Details

Full title:MARC J. FISHER, Respondent, v. EDITH G. FISHER, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 18, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 458

Citing Cases

Yao v. Yao

The court properly denied defendant's cross motion. “While it is true that a party may be awarded interim…

YAO v. YAO

The court properly denied defendant's cross motion. "While it is true that a party may be awarded interim…