Opinion
2018-14878 Index No. 201505/17
05-06-2020
Tracey GOVE, Appellant, v. Andrew GOVE, Respondent.
Petroske Riezenman & Meyers, PC, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Debra Welsh of counsel), for appellant. Simonetti & Associates, Syosset, N.Y. (Timothy J. Fallon of counsel), for respondent.
Petroske Riezenman & Meyers, PC, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Debra Welsh of counsel), for appellant.
Simonetti & Associates, Syosset, N.Y. (Timothy J. Fallon of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The parties were married in 2002. In 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. In 2018, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in which the plaintiff reserved the right to seek an award of counsel fees. Thereafter, she made a motion for an award of counsel fees, which the defendant opposed. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for an award of counsel fees only to the extent of awarding her the sum of $5,000. The plaintiff appeals.
"An award of counsel fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(a) 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’ " ( D'Angio v. D'Angio, 171 A.D.3d 1130, 1130, 96 N.Y.S.3d 915, quoting Morrissey v. Morrissey, 259 A.D.2d 472, 473, 686 N.Y.S.2d 71 ). "In determining whether to award counsel fees, the court should review the financial circumstances of the parties and the circumstances of the case as a whole, which may include the relative merit of the parties' positions and whether either party has engaged in conduct or taken positions resulting in a delay of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation" ( D'Angio v. D'Angio, 171 A.D.3d at 1130–1131, 96 N.Y.S.3d 915 ; see Odermatt v. Odermatt, 119 A.D.3d 754, 756, 989 N.Y.S.2d 335 ; Mueller v. Mueller, 113 A.D.3d 660, 661, 978 N.Y.S.2d 696 ). "An appropriate award of attorney's fees should take into account the parties' ability to pay, the nature and extent of the services rendered, the complexity of the issues involved, and the reasonableness of the fees under all of the circumstances" ( DiBlasi v. DiBlasi, 48 A.D.3d 403, 405, 852 N.Y.S.2d 195 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
Here, in consideration of the financial circumstances of both parties together with all of the other circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the plaintiff's award of counsel fees to the sum of $5,000, in addition to the interim counsel fees in the sum of $2,500 that she already was awarded (see Beyel v. Beyel, 173 A.D.3d 1129, 1130, 105 N.Y.S.3d 526 ; Cotter v. Cotter, 139 A.D.3d 995, 996, 30 N.Y.S.3d 828 ).
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, LASALLE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.