Opinion
2012-08820
12-17-2014
Usha SUTARIA, respondent, v. Samir SUTARIA, appellant.
Breiter and Gura, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Jeanne C. Breiter of counsel), for appellant.
Breiter and Gura, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Jeanne C. Breiter of counsel), for appellant.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated July 2, 2012, as granted the plaintiff's cross motion for an award of counsel fees to the extent of awarding her the sum of $73,602.46.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(a), an award of counsel fees “is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the issue ‘is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case’ ” (Prichep v. Prichep, 52 A.D.3d 61, 64, 858 N.Y.S.2d 667, quoting Morrissey v. Morrissey, 259 A.D.2d 472, 473, 686 N.Y.S.2d 71 ; see Mueller v. Mueller, 113 A.D.3d 660, 978 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; Carr–Harris v. Carr–Harris, 98 A.D.3d 548, 552, 949 N.Y.S.2d 707 ). In determining whether to award counsel fees, the court should “review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties' positions” (DeCabrera v. Cabrera–Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881, 524 N.Y.S.2d 176, 518 N.E.2d 1168 ; see Guzzo v. Guzzo, 110 A.D.3d 765, 766, 973 N.Y.S.2d 265 ; Matter of Baribault v. Sauvola, 101 A.D.3d 865, 866, 955 N.Y.S.2d 406 ; Ciampa v. Ciampa, 47 A.D.3d 745, 748, 850 N.Y.S.2d 190 ). The court may also consider whether either party has engaged in conduct or taken positions resulting in delays of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation (see Guzzo v. Guzzo, 110 A.D.3d at 766, 973 N.Y.S.2d 265 ; Khan v. Ahmed, 98 A.D.3d 471, 473, 949 N.Y.S.2d 428 ; Prichep v. Prichep, 52 A.D.3d at 64, 858 N.Y.S.2d 667 ; Ciampa v. Ciampa, 47 A.D.3d at 748, 850 N.Y.S.2d 190 ).
Here, considering all of the relevant circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff counsel fees in the sum of $73,602.46. There is a significant income disparity between the parties, and the defendant's conduct throughout these proceedings unnecessarily delayed the litigation (see Mueller v. Mueller, 113 A.D.3d 660, 661, 978 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; Guzzo v. Guzzo, 110 A.D.3d at 765–766, 973 N.Y.S.2d 265 ; Peritore v. Peritore, 50 A.D.3d 874, 875, 855 N.Y.S.2d 646 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.