From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sapir v. Sapir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 2001
288 A.D.2d 25 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Summary

In Sapir v. Sapir, 288 AD2d 25(1st Dept. 2001) the court awarded Plaintiff counsel fees after considering 1) the circumstances of the case, including that the Plaintiff had no income, 2) the Defendant's admitted vast wealth, and 3) the Defendant's avoidance of service and requests for adjournments increasing the Plaintiff's litigation costs.

Summary of this case from Sherril R.D. v. Alfred B.D.

Opinion

November 1, 2001.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith Gische, J.), entered February 7, 2001, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff interim counsel fees of $85,000, plus additional counsel fees of $5000 associated with her making of a contempt motion, and denied defendant's cross motion for a change of venue, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Myrna Felder, for plaintiff-respondent.

Stephen Gassman, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Ellerin, Friedman, Marlow, JJ.


Defendant's cross motion for a change of venue, made more than three months after his demand for a change of venue, was properly denied as untimely (CPLR 511[b]; Pittman v. Maher, 202 A.D.2d 172, 174; Singh v. Becher, 249 A.D.2d 154). The award of interim counsel fees was a proper exercise of discretion, taking into account the circumstances of the case and defendant's admittedly vast wealth, as well as defendant's avoidance of service and requests for adjournments increasing plaintiff's litigation costs (see, Charpie v. Charpie, 271 A.D.2d 169, 171-172; Melnitzky v. Melnitzky, 284 A.D.2d 240, 726 N.Y.S.2d 649). Also proper was the award of $5000 to cover the cost of plaintiff's contempt motion, which was necessitated by defendant's clear, albeit harmless, violation of the temporary restraining order. We reject defendant's claim that plaintiff failed to submit a proper net worth statement, where plaintiff claims, without contradiction, no income and no knowledge of the value of her assets, all of which are completely under defendant's control. We have considered defendant's other arguments and find that they, as well as this appeal, border on the frivolous.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Sapir v. Sapir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 2001
288 A.D.2d 25 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

In Sapir v. Sapir, 288 AD2d 25(1st Dept. 2001) the court awarded Plaintiff counsel fees after considering 1) the circumstances of the case, including that the Plaintiff had no income, 2) the Defendant's admitted vast wealth, and 3) the Defendant's avoidance of service and requests for adjournments increasing the Plaintiff's litigation costs.

Summary of this case from Sherril R.D. v. Alfred B.D.
Case details for

Sapir v. Sapir

Case Details

Full title:BELLA SAPIR, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TAMIR SAPIR, Defendant-Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 1, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 25 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
732 N.Y.S.2d 169

Citing Cases

Sherril R.D. v. Alfred B.D.

In Sapir v. Sapir, 288 AD2d 25(1st Dept. 2001) the court awarded Plaintiff counsel fees after considering 1)…