Opinion
2017–06683 Index No. 200838/14
07-22-2020
Yolanda LINDO, plaintiff-appellant, v. Milton P. LINDO, Sr., respondent; The Virdone Law Firm, P.C., nonparty-appellant.
The Virdone Law Firm, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (John Virdone of counsel), for plaintiff—appellant. Sunshine, Isaacson & Hecht, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Jason A. Isaacson of counsel), for respondent.
The Virdone Law Firm, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (John Virdone of counsel), for plaintiff—appellant.
Sunshine, Isaacson & Hecht, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Jason A. Isaacson of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff and nonparty The Virdone Law Firm, P.C., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jeffrey A. Goodstein, J.), dated April 5, 2017. The order granted the plaintiff's motion for an award of counsel fees only to the extent of awarding her counsel fees in the sum of $25,000.
ORDERED that the appeal by nonparty The Virdone Law Firm, P.C., is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed on the appeal by the plaintiff; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The appeal by nonparty The Virdone Law Firm, P.C., must be dismissed as abandoned, since the appellate brief has been submitted only on behalf of the plaintiff (see e.g. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Grennan, 175 A.D.3d 1512, 1513, 106 N.Y.S.3d 903 ; Platt v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 105 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 964 N.Y.S.2d 223 ; Mora v. Kane is Able, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 1022, 1022, 963 N.Y.S.2d 375 ).
The determination of what constitutes reasonable counsel fees is within the Supreme Court's discretion (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a] ; DeCabrera v. Cabrera–Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881, 524 N.Y.S.2d 176, 518 N.E.2d 1168 ; Duffy v. Duffy, 84 A.D.3d 1151, 1152, 924 N.Y.S.2d 449 ;
Kaplan v. Kaplan, 51 A.D.3d 635, 637, 857 N.Y.S.2d 677 ). In exercising its discretion, a court should review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all of the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties' positions (see DeCabrera v. Cabrera–Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d at 881, 524 N.Y.S.2d 176, 518 N.E.2d 1168 ). Under the circumstances here, including the defendant's status as the monied spouse, the considerable disparity in the parties' counsels' fees, and the amount of the distributive award and the maintenance award to the plaintiff, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the plaintiff's award of counsel fees to the sum of $25,000 (see Burke v. Burke, 175 A.D.3d 458, 460, 109 N.Y.S.3d 54 ; Beyel v. Beyel, 173 A.D.3d 1129, 1130, 105 N.Y.S.3d 526 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., MALTESE, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.