From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Aronesty v. Aronesty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 8, 1994
202 A.D.2d 240 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 8, 1994

Appeal from the Family Court, Nassau County (Joseph DeMaro, J.).


We decline to disturb the Family Court's award of counsel fees (see, Matter of O'Neil v. O'Neil, 193 A.D.2d 16, 19-20), the evaluation thereof being committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in a "superior position to judge those factors integral to the fixing of counsel fees" (Levine v Levine, 179 A.D.2d 625, 626). Certainly appellant's inability to pay her entire legal bill does not warrant saddling respondent with the bill where the court found that appellant's counsel unnecessarily prolonged this action in order to run up his fees.

As the trial of this custody matter afforded the court with ample opportunity to evaluate the legal services rendered thereto, an additional hearing was not needed to fix the amount of the fee.

We have considered appellant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Aronesty v. Aronesty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 8, 1994
202 A.D.2d 240 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Aronesty v. Aronesty

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROBERT ARONESTY, Respondent, v. RONNI ARONESTY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 8, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 240 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 444

Citing Cases

Upbin v. Upbin

However, the court earmarked $7,500 out of the $35,000 to defray the cost of fees generated in relation to…

Suzanne v. Dodson

Before: Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and McGuire, JJ. The determination of an application for interim…