From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MICA v. MICA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 25, 2000
275 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued May 30, 2000

September 25, 2000.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), dated June 4, 1998, which, upon a judgment of the same court (Bucaria, J.), entered October 9, 1998, referring the plaintiff husband's application for an attorney's fee for a hearing, and after a hearing, awarded the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the sum of $15,782.18.

Carl G. Cohen, Carle Place, N.Y., for appellant.

Gloria May Rosenblum, East Islip, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, in awarding an attorney's fee to the plaintiff, the hearing court properly reviewed the respective financial circumstances of the parties (see, DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879). Given the marked disparity in the parties ' income, the award of an attorney's fee to the plaintiff was a proper exercise of discretion under the circumstances (see, Hackett v. Hackett, 147 A.D.2d 611; cf., Thomas v. Thomas, 221 A.D.2d 621). Contrary to the defendant's arguments, a sufficient evidentiary basis existed for the value of the legal services rendered (see, Matter of Buono v. Fantacone, 252 A.D.2d 917).


Summaries of

MICA v. MICA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 25, 2000
275 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

MICA v. MICA

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD MICA, RESPONDENT, v. ELIZABETH MICA, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Sep 25, 2000

Citations

275 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 217