Opinion
No. 2022-07602 Index No. 516271/20
05-22-2024
Titus L. Neckles, respondent, v. Margaret Neckles, appellant.
Roach Bernard, PLLC, Valley Stream, NY (Seidia Roach Bernard of counsel), for appellant. Titus L. Neckles, Brooklyn, NY, respondent pro se.
Roach Bernard, PLLC, Valley Stream, NY (Seidia Roach Bernard of counsel), for appellant.
Titus L. Neckles, Brooklyn, NY, respondent pro se.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., BETSY BARROS, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), dated August 16, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for sanctions in the form of attorneys' fees and costs to the extent of awarding the plaintiff attorneys' fees in the sum of $2,500.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In this action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the parties settled all issues except the equitable distribution of the plaintiff's retirement accounts. The defendant then moved, inter alia, for an award of interim counsel fees for trial purposes. The plaintiff cross-moved, among other things, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for sanctions in the form of attorneys' fees and costs against the defendant on the ground that the defendant unnecessarily delayed this action. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the defendant's motion and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion to the extent of awarding the plaintiff attorneys' fees in the sum of $2,500. The defendant appeals.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion (see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879) in declining to award the defendant interim counsel fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(a). In a December 2020 so-ordered stipulation, the parties agreed that "[e]ach party shall be responsible for their own counsel fees."
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff attorneys' fees in the sum of $2,500 on the ground that the defendant unnecessarily delayed the action by disregarding the December 2020 so-ordered stipulation in bringing her motion for interim counsel fees (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a], [c]).
DILLON, J.P., BARROS, DOWLING and WAN, JJ., concur.