Opinion
July 8, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feuerstein, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by granting the former wife's application for an upward modification of child support. The former wife demonstrated that the combination of her own income and the former husband's child support obligation, as set forth in the parties' prior settlement, was not adequate to meet the custodial daughter's needs ( see, Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132; Rocchio v Rocchio, 213 A.D.2d 535, 536; Matter of Berg v. O'Leary, 193 A.D.2d 732, 734; see also, Matter of Pettey v. Piko, 215 A.D.2d 485; Matter of Schiavone v. Schiavone, 208 A.D.2d 543).
The issue of counsel fees is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case, and the court must consider the relative merits of the parties' positions and their respective financial positions in determining whether an award is appropriate ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; O'Brien v O'Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576, 590; Linda R. v. Richard E., 176 A.D.2d 312, 313-314). Given the great disparity in the incomes of the parties, as well as the merits of the former wife's position, we decline to disturb the Supreme Court's award of counsel fees and expenses ( see, Kret v. Kret, 222 A.D.2d 412; Krinsky v. Krinsky, 208 A.D.2d 599, 600-601; Maher v. Maher, 196 A.D.2d 530, 532). Pizzuto, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.