Opinion
January 8, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.).
In these postdivorce proceedings, defendant sought downward modification of the maintenance award granted to plaintiff by order of the IAS Part entered March 1, 1988, which order was affirmed by this court on May 30, 1989 ( 150 A.D.2d 308, lv dismissed 75 N.Y.2d 766, rearg denied 75 N.Y.2d 866). During oral argument of the instant appeal, the court was informed that defendant no longer seeks a hearing to downwardly modify the $350 per week maintenance award to his former spouse, and challenges solely the award of counsel fees.
The issue of recusal of the Trial Judge, also raised by counsel at argument, is not properly before this court. Were we to reach it, we would find the record devoid of any ground for such relief.
Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (b), counsel fees in the sum of $30,000 were awarded to plaintiff after a hearing held July 6, 1988 and continued on April 13, 1989, in which the court received testimonial and documentary evidence regarding the financial circumstances of the parties and the extent of counsel's services over the course of this lengthy litigation. Upon examination of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the IAS Part's assessment of counsel fees, and conclude that it represents a reasonable appraisal of the service rendered. (See, Delgado v Delgado, 160 A.D.2d 385.)
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Kassal, JJ.