Opinion
December 23, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Upon consideration of the relevant factors governing the awarding of maintenance (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]), we discern no impropriety in the Supreme Court's award of maintenance to the plaintiff wife in light of the substantial disparity between the income and resources of the respective parties (see, Powers v Powers, 171 A.D.2d 737; Sperling v Sperling, 165 A.D.2d 338; Schlosberg v Schlosberg, 163 A.D.2d 381; Behan v Behan, 163 A.D.2d 505).
In addition, we find that the award of counsel fees to the wife was within the proper exercise of the trial court's discretion (see, Hackett v Hackett, 147 A.D.2d 611, 613; Denholz v Denholz, 147 A.D.2d 522, 525; Stempler v Stempler, 143 A.D.2d 410, 413; Megally v Megally, 142 A.D.2d 721, 723). While the defendant husband would ordinarily be entitled to an evidentiary hearing during which he could challenge the value and extent of counsel's claimed services, the husband failed to request such a hearing or to object to the submission of the issue of counsel fees based on papers. Accordingly, the husband has waived his right to a hearing on this issue (see, Gross v Gross, 160 A.D.2d 976, 979; Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 155 A.D.2d 428, 432; Kandel v Kandel, 129 A.D.2d 617, 618; Lynch v Lynch, 97 A.D.2d 814). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.