Opinion
November 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, J., Donovan, J.).
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff husband's contentions, we find that the award of interim counsel fees was a proper exercise of discretion. The defendant wife is a sales representative, earning approximately $18,000 per year. The husband has a net annual income of about $80,000 per year from a corporation in which he holds a 50% interest. Therefore, the wife's financial need and the parties' disparate incomes support the award (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Hausman v Hausman, 162 A.D.2d 590). Although the wife owns a stock portfolio valued at approximately $11,000, we have noted that indigency is not a prerequisite to an award of counsel fees and a party is not required to exhaust his or her own capital to qualify for an interim counsel fee award (see, Cole v Cole, 182 A.D.2d 738; Sharwell v Sharwell, 155 A.D.2d 434; Hyman v Hyman, 56 A.D.2d 337). Moreover, the awards of expert fees in the amount of $1,000 and $2,500 did not constitute improvident exercises of discretion (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Ahern v Ahern, 94 A.D.2d 53).
We further find that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the husband's motion for renewal based upon newly-discovered facts (see, Weiss v Flushing Natl. Bank, 176 A.D.2d 797). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.